The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of relief through a Habeas Corpus Petition based on similar grounds as in a previous case.

JUDGMENT

(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of detention dated 05.07.2022 vide Memo No.67/BCDFGISSSV/2022 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to set forth the detenu Srinivasan, aged 31 years, now confined in Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 05.07.2022 bearing reference 67/BCDFGISSSV/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as the impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.

2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There is one adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.125 of 2022 on the file of E-4 Kattur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr. D.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us.

5. We are informed by both sides that a co-accused in the ground case was clamped with similar preventive detention order i.e., similar to the impugned preventive detention order. We are further informed that co-accused preferred a HCP in this Court being H.C.P.No.1487 of 2022 and the same was allowed by this Court on 01.03.2023 [Neutral Citation 2023/MHC/893]. A scanned reproduction of the order is as follows:

Panchavaram @ Panchavarnam Versus The Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others – (H.C.P.No.1487 of 2022).

6. We are also informed without any disputation or disagreement that the same ground on which HCP of the co-accused was allowed is available to the detenu in the case on hand also.

7. In the light of this undisputed position, it follows as a natural sequitur that impugned detention order in the case on hand also deserves to be dislodged.

8. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 05.07.2022 bearing reference 67/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Srinivasan, aged 32 years, son of Thiru.Arumugam, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.