Father of a 'Goonda' detenue challenged his preventive detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, citing delay of 52 days from the ground case and absence of bail applications in the ground case and one adverse case. The Court found no legal infirmity and dismissed the habeas corpus petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HCP(MD)No.1142 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.1142 of 2024
Gurusamy
.. Petitioner /Father of
the Detenu
Vs.
Page 1 of 6
HCP(MD)No.1142 of 2024
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call of the records relating to the detention order in M.H.S.Confdl No.61/2024 dated 03.08.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue namely Sehturkumar @ Santhanakumar @ Vellaiyan, son of Gurusamy, aged about 24 years now detained as “GOONDA” at Central Prison, Palayamkottai and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner :Mr.N.Mohideen Basha For Respondents :Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA , J.
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the father of the detenu viz., Sehturkumar @ Santhanakumar @ Vellaiyan, son of Gurusamy, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent, by his order in M.H.S.Confdl No.61/2024 dated 03.08.2024 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamail Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
Page 2 of 6
HCP(MD)No.1142 of 2024
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3.According to the detaining authority, the son of the petitioner is detained under Act 14 of 1982 for his involvement and series of criminal case pending in different Districts. In ground case, in respect of murder of one Periyadurai, which is under investigation in Crime No.95 of 2024 on the file of Chinnakovilankulam Police Station, Thenkasi.
4.The learned counsel apparing for the petitioner would submit that the detention order itself clearly reveal that the detenue has not applied for any bail in ground case and the adverse case. Out of three adverse cases, he was granted anticipatory bail in two cases and another case no application for bail filed by him. Therefore, the apprehension of being release on bail in future does not arise. Furthermore, the learned counsel would also submit that though the ground case alleged to have taken place on 08.06.2024, the order of detention was passed on 03.08.2024. The delay of 52 days there is no proximity between the ground case and the detention order.
Page 3 of 6
HCP(MD)No.1142 of 2024
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submits that the detenue has involved in multiple criminal cases spreading over three Districts. In ground case, he has committed murder due to previous enmity. The antecedent of the detenue has provided every reason to apprehend that his presence in the public will create fear in the mind of the public and disturb the tranquity. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the delay in passing the detention order due to the fact that the involvment of the detenue in different crime and different police station in three Districts, sufficient time was required to collect materials and apply the mind whether the detenue has to be preventively detained under Act 14 of 1982.
6.This Court, on perusing the records, finds that the series of crime of different nature are under investigation. The detenue has involved in subsequent crime, after obtaining anticipatory bail in two cases. Though he has not filed any bail petition in one of the adverse case and the ground case, there is a possibility of filing bail petition is not ruled out. On consideration of the materials placed, this Court holds that the detention order does not suffer any legal infirmity.
Page 4 of 6
HCP(MD)No.1142 of 2024
7.In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
[G.J., J.] & [R.P., J.]
17.02.2025
NCC :Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ns To
3.The Inspector of Police, Chinnakovilankulam Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.95 of 2024)
Page 5 of 6
HCP(MD)No.1142 of 2024
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and R.POORNIMA , J.
Ns
H.C.P.(MD)No.1142 of 2024
17.02.2025
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the detention order dated 03.08.2024 under Act 14 of 1982 suffers legal infirmity due to lack of proximity and absence of bail applications.
Whether the possibility of the detenu's future release on bail justified preventive detention.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurusamy
The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tenkasi District
The Inspector of Police, Chinnakovilankulam Police Station, Tenkasi District
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai
G.Jayachandran
R.Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
