Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Alice Jesintha, W/o. Durai Tamilarasu – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Dept. , Secretariat, Chennai-600009 – Respondent
ORDER :
[M. Sundar, J.]
[Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 15.08.2022 in Memo No.125/BCDFGISSSV/2022 against the petitioner's husband Durai Tamilarasu, Male aged 33 years, S/o.Duraisamy, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.]
1. Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity and convenience] has been filed by the spouse of detenu in this Court on 23.09.2022 assailing a 'detention order dated 15.08.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.125/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by the 'second respondent i.e., jurisdictional Commissioner of Police' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent i.e., jurisdictional Inspector of Police is the Sponsoring Authority.
2. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Mu
The sufficiency of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the actions taken by the detenu's father in seeking bail were crucial in determining the legality of the detention order.
The court emphasized the importance of specific aspects of the ground case in discretionary relief of grant of bail, and the lack of support for the detaining authority's grounds.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for a preventive detention order must be supported by adequate material, and the lack o....
The impaired subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the detenu's imminent possibility of being enlarged on bail led to the vitiation of the impugned preventive detention order.
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the grounds for preventive detention must be based on valid and relevant considerations.
Non-application of mind by the detaining authority in making a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in preventive detention cases must be based on reliable and dated evidence to justify the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on b....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in a preventive detention order must be based on adequate material, and that prevent....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
