The importance of proper arrest intimation and the detenu's right to make an effective representation under the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records pursuant to the order in Memo No.94/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 05.08.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same consequently produce the detenu Dhanush @ Stalin aged about 22 years, S/o. Pandiyan before this Court and set him liberty, the detenu is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.)

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 05.08.2022 bearing reference 94/BCDFGISSSV/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, third respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as 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 are one adverse case and one ground case. The ground case which is the substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.225 of 2022 on the file of B-4 Sevvapet Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 336, 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) 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.Arun, learned counsel 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. The contention of the petitioner is that in the Arrest Intimation Form there is no signature of the witness though it says that SMS has been sent to a particular mobile number. He further submitted that the mobile number shown in the Arrest Intimation Form has not been confirmed to be that of the family members of the detenu. This point is also raised in one of the representation. Referring to Page No.102 (Statement) and Page No.103 (Special Report) of grounds of detention booklet, learned counsel submitted that though it has been projected that a statement under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner has been recorded to show that steps have been taken to move bail application, no such statement has been given.

6. In contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the statement of parents of the detenu had been recorded, wherein they have confirmed about steps being taken for bail on behalf of the detenu. Further, a Special Report confirms that the family members of the detenu are taking steps for bail. Thereafter the detaining authority has passed the impugned detention order.

7. On a perusal of the booklet served to the petitioner, it is seen that there is no date in both statement said to have been taken from the mother of the detenu as well as the special report, to show that on which date the statement has been recorded. In view of the same, the statement and the Special Report saying that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file bail application cannot be reliable as they are undated. Further, the statement and Special Report also do not make any reference that the mobile number found in the Arrest Intimation Form belong to the father of the detenu.

8. The Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Akilandeswari Vs. State, rep. by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohib