Allowed

V.Sankari v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC29 Apr 2024HCP(MD)/121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition challenged a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act of 1982. The High Court found that the Detaining Authority relied on a statement recorded before the alleged incident, demonstrating non-application of mind. The petition was allowed, and the detention order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.78/2023 dated 08.11.2023 was set aside, and the detenu Varatharajan @ Vajboy was directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in any other

V.Sankari Vs The Principal Secretary to… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.121 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.121 of 2024

V.Sankari

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

¶11

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tenkasi District Tenkasi

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Palayamkottai Tirunelveli ... Respondents

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

PRAYER:

¶16

H.C.P.(MD) No.121 of 2024

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.78/2023, dated 08.11.2023, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's husband, namely, Varatharajan @ Vajboy, son of Velkutti, aged about 29 years, now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]

¶21

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Varatharajan @ Vajboy, son of Velkutti, aged about 29 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.78/2023, dated 08.11.2023, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶22

Page 2 of 7

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

H.C.P.(MD) No.121 of 2024

¶25

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶26

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, while passing the impugned detention order. According to the learned counsel, the ground case is stated to have been happened on 17.10.2023, based on which a case in Alwarkurichi Police Station Crime No. 217 of 2023 was registered on the same day. Whereas, in order to substantiate the ground that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bring him out on bail, the Sponsoring Authority has relied on the statement of one Subramanian, which is stated to have been recorded on 06.10.2023, which is prior to the registration of the case in Crime No.217 of 2023. In this regard, no clarification has been sought for by the Detaining Authority, which exposes non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

¶27

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

H.C.P.(MD) No.121 of 2024

¶30

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though the statement of one Subramian, which was recorded prior to the registration of the first information report, was relied on by the Sponsoring Authority, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

¶31

5. The ground case is said to have been taken place on 17.10.2023, for which a case in Alwarkurichi Police Station Crime No.217 of 2023 came to be registered on the same day. The detenu was arrested on 18.10.2023. However, at Page No.83 of the booklet, the Sponsoring Authority has placed a statement of Subramanian recorded on 06.10.2023. When the case in Crime No.217 of 2023 was registered only on 17.10.2023, the said statement of Subramanian could not have been relied as it was recorded on 06.10.2023, which shows non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned detention order. Therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

¶32

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

H.C.P.(MD) No.121 of 2024

¶35

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.78/2023, dated 08.11.2023, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Varatharajan @ Vajboy, son of Velkutti, aged about 29 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶36

[A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.]

¶37

29.04.2024

¶38

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶39

krk

¶40

To: 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶41

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶42

Page 5 of 7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

¶45

H.C.P.(MD) No.121 of 2024

¶46

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

Page 6 of 7

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

H.C.P.(MD) No.121 of 2024

¶50

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. krk

¶51

H.C.P.(MD) No.121 of 2024

¶52

29.04.2024

¶53

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V.Sankari v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sankari v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.P Thomas Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

S.Shiny Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Tamilarasi Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

S.Arunaselvi Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Kalaieswari.B Vs State of Tamilnadu

R.Shanmugam Vs The Superintendent of Police