Dismissed¶37

Jayarani v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC1 Apr 2025HCP(MD)/156/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus; preventive detention; Goonda; Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982; Section 2(f); Section 10; Article 22(5); Article 226; delay in detention; live proximity/live link; stale adverse cases; representation not placed before Advisory Board; grounds of detention; bail possibility; application of mind; Crime No.549 of 2021; Crime No.48 of 2023; Crime No.144 of 2024; Section 394 IPC; Central Prison Madurai; Sivagangai District Collector; detention confirmed; HCP dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On perusing the records, the detenu's antecedents, the nature of the crime committed and the grounds raised, this Court found the sponsoring authority was warranted in recommending preventive detention ¶34

Jayarani Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the preventive detention order is vitiated because it was passed after a delay of 35 days from arrest, without live proximity +3 more

¶25

Ratio / Principle

¶34

Key takeaways

The representations given on behalf of the detenu were considered and rejected for valid reasons (answering the Article 22(5)/Section 10 grievance)ratio¶34
The detention order does not suffer from any infirmity or non-application of mind and therefore needs no interference by this Court (dismissing the grounds of delay, stale adverse cases and bail-possibility)ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Petition (H.C.P(MD)No.156 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, G.Jayachandran and R.Poornima, JJ., decided 01.04.2025) by the mother of detenu Alex @ Alaguraja challenging his preventive detention as a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Sivagangai, in Cr.M.P.No.11/Goonda/2024 dated 2.7.2024. Grounds urged: 35-day delay between arrest under Section 394 IPC and detention, absence of live proximity; reliance on a stale adverse case of 2020-2021; non-consideration of the detenu's representation dated 22.10.2024 and its non-placement before the Advisory Board in breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 10 of the Act; grounds not informed to family; non-application of mind on bail possibility. The State pointed to two pending adverse cases (Crime Nos. 549 of 2021 and 48 of 2023) and the sponsoring offence in Crime No.144 of 2024, Government approval on 13.7.2024, Advisory Board meeting on 16.8.2024, State confirmation on 29.7.2024 (as printed), communication of the representation's disposal, and the detenu's subsequent release on bail on 15.11.2024. HELD: on perusal of the records, antecedents and nature of the crime, the sponsoring authority was warranted in recommending detention; the representations were considered and rejected for valid reasons; the detention order suffered no infirmity or non-application of mind. Petition dismissed.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 01.04.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

H.C.P(MD)No.156 of 2025

¶7

Jayarani ... Petitioner/Mother of the Detenu

¶8

.Vs.

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Sivagagani, Sivagangai District.

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶12

4.The Inspector of Police, Ilayankudi Police Station, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

PRAYER:

¶16

PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to call for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent made in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.11/Goonda/2024, dated 2.7.2024 in detaining the detenue under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely, Alex @ Alaguraja, son of Jayakumar, Male aged about 24 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Lenin For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi 1 to 3 Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J AND R.POORNIMA.,J

¶20

The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent made in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.11/Goonda/2024, dated 2.7.2024 in detaining the detenue under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce

¶21

2/8

¶22

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

¶23

the detenu namely, Alex @ Alaguraja, son of Jayakumar, Male aged about 24 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶24

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶25

3.The Petition is filed to quash the detention order, dated 2.7.2024 on the ground that the Petitioner who was arrested under Section 394 of IPC, whereas, the detention order was passed after a delay of 35 days on 2.7.2024 without any life and proximity.That apart, the adverse case mentioned in the detention order is of the year 2020-2021 which ought not to have been waived the mind of the detaining authrity to invoke preventive detention.

¶26

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner futher submitted that on 22.10.2024, representation was sent by the detenu to the Government and the same was not considered. The respresentation was not placed before the Advisory Board for its consideration.Thus there is a violation of Section 10 of Act 14 of

¶27

3/8

¶28

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

¶29

1982 as well as Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The grounds of detention was not informed properly to the family members.The detaining authority has not applied its mind while considering the real possibility of coming out on bail.

¶30

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents/State submitted that the delay in sponsoring the detention was due to the involvement of the accused in two other crimes outside the jurisdiction of the Sponsoring Authority. Though two adverse cases were registered for the offence under Section 147, 148,427, 294(b), 341, 302, 506(ii)IPC r/w 109 IPC, then altered to Section 147, 148, 427, 294(b), 302, 506(ii), 109, 342 and 120(B) IPC by Sivagangai Town Police in Crime No.549 of 2021, dated 16.09.2021, the trial of the case is pending.The second case was for the offence under Section 454 and 380 IPC registered by the Emaneswaram Police Station in Crime No.48 of 2023 on 21.3.2023. In this case also, the trial is pending.While so, the petitioner has engaged in the third offence attracting the offence Section 394 IPC investigated in Crime No.144 o 2024, dated 28.4.2024 by Elayangudi Police Station. The representations which were reached for consideration were placed

¶31

4/8

¶32

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

¶33

and after due examination of the representation, orders were passed. The detention was approved by the Government on 13.7.2024.The Advisory Board met on 16.8.2024 On the report of the Advisory Board, the detention was confirmed by the State on 29.7.2024. The disposal of the representation was duly communicated to the detenu. Hence there is no violation of Article 22(5) or the Constitution of India or Section 10 of Act 14 of 1982. At the time of passing the detention order on 2.7.2024, the possibility of getting bail was observed by the detaining authority and the said possibility has become real when the detenu was granted bail subsequently on 15.11.2024.

¶34

6.This Court, on perusing the records, the antecedents of the detenu, the nature of the crime committed and the grounds raised, had warranted the sponsoring authority to recommend for preventive detention. The representations given on behalf of the detenu have been considered and rejected for valid reasons. The detaining order does not suffer from any infirmity or non application of mind and therefore needs no interference by this Court.

¶35

5/8

¶36

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

¶37

7.Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed.

¶38

[G.J.,J.] [R.P.,J.]

¶39

01.04.2025

¶40

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶41

vsn

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Sivagagani, Sivagangai District.

¶45

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶46

4.The Inspector of Police, Ilayankudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶47

6/8

¶48

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

¶49

Copy to

¶50

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

¶51

7/8

¶52

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

¶53

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. and R.POORNIMA ,J.

¶54

vsn

¶55

ORDER MADE IN

¶56

H.C.P(MD)No.156 of 2025

¶57

01.04.2025

¶58

8/8

¶59

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Preventive detention order in Cr.M.P.No.11/Goonda/2024, dated 2.7.2024, passed by the second respondent detaining the detenu as a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982¶16
Second respondent (District Collector and District Magistrate, Sivagangai) · 2.7.2024
Prior proceeding
The detenu (referred to as 'the Petitioner' in the grounds) was arrested under Section 394 of IPC¶25
Prior proceeding
Ground of challenge: detention order passed after a delay of 35 days, without any life and proximity¶25
Prior proceeding
Ground of challenge: adverse case relied upon was of the year 2020-2021 and ought not to have weighed with the detaining authority¶25
Prior proceeding
Adverse Case 1: registered by Sivagangai Town Police in Crime No.549 of 2021, dated 16.09.2021, initially under Sections 147, 148, 427, 294(b), 341, 302, 506(ii) IPC r/w 109 IPC, later altered to add Sections 342 and 120(B) IPC; trial pending¶30
Prior proceeding
Adverse Case 2: registered by Emaneswaram Police Station in Crime No.48 of 2023 on 21.3.2023 under Sections 454 and 380 IPC; trial pending¶30
Prior proceeding
Sponsoring offence: third offence under Section 394 IPC investigated in Crime No.144 o[f] 2024, dated 28.4.2024, by Elayangudi Police Station¶30
Prior proceeding
State's explanation for the delay in sponsoring detention: involvement of the accused in two crimes outside the Sponsoring Authority's jurisdiction¶30
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's grievance: detenu's representation dated 22.10.2024 to the Government was not considered and was not placed before the Advisory Board¶26
Prior proceeding
Per the Additional Public Prosecutor: detention approved by the Government on 13.7.2024; Advisory Board met on 16.8.2024; detention confirmed by the State on 29.7.2024 (chronology as printed)¶33
Prior proceeding
Per the State: disposal of the representation was duly communicated to the detenu; hence no violation of Article 22(5) or Section 10 of Act 14 of 1982¶33
Prior proceeding
Detenu was granted bail subsequently on 15.11.2024, which the State said made the anticipated bail possibility real¶33

Jayarani v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayarani v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boopathy Vs The State of Tamilnadu

A.Muniyasamy Vs The Superintendent of Police

Gurmukh Singh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Sasikala Vs The State rep.by

Lingammal Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M.Pavina Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by