BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.Suresh Kumar, K.K.Ramakrishnan, JJ.
Velammal – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and ors. – Respondents
H.C.P.(MD)Nos.1076,1085 to 1087 of 2022
Decided On : 15-03-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, by calling for records relating to Detention Order passed by 2nd respondent in M.H.S.Confdl and to quash same and direct respondents to produce person or body of detenu, Asaithambi, son of Kaliappan, to be detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, who is now detained in District Prison, Perurani, Thoothukudi District, before this Court and set him at liberty - Held, Quashment of detention orders passed against co-accused/ co-detenu in H.C.P(MD) is concerned, said accused has no adverse case - Apart from that there was no parity in detention proceedings when detenues in these Habeas Corpus Petitions have previous antecedents - Court considering role of detenues in propensity of murder and adverse case of detenues, did not find any merit in submission of learned counsel for petitioners to apply principle of parity - Habeas Corpus Petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
PRAYER in HCP(MD)1076/2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, by calling for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No.84/2022 dated 08.06.2022 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu, Asaithambi, son of Kaliappan, aged about 28 years, to be detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, who is now detained in District Prison, Perurani, Thoothukudi District, before this Court and set him at liberty.
Prayer in HCP(MD)1085/2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, by calling for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No.85/2022 dated 08.06.2022 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu, Alexkumar @ Alex, son of Chellaiah, aged about 25 years, to be detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, who is now detained in District Prison, Perurani, Thoothukudi District, before this Court and set him at liberty.
PRAYER in HCP(MD)1086/2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, by calling for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No.86/2022 dated 08.06.2022 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu, Kathiravan, son of Thavasi, aged about 34 years, to be detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, who is now detained in District Prison, Perurani, Thoothukudi District, before this Court and set him at liberty.
PRAYER in HCP(MD)1087/2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, by calling for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No.87/2022 dated 08.06.2022 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu, Vinothkumar, son of Thangavel, aged about 27 years, to be detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, who is now detained in District Prison, Perurani, Thoothukudi District, before this Court and set him at liberty.
These petitions are filed on behalf of the detenus, who are accused in Crime No.120/2022 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148 & 302 IPC altered into 147, 148 & 302 r/w 149 IPC by the third respondent police and the detenues have been detained by the second respondent by his order dated 08.06.2022 in M.H.S.Confdl.Nos.84, 85, 86 & 87/2022 holding them to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Herein after referred to as 'the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982'). The said detention orders are under challenge in these Habeas Corpus Petitions.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2022 around 2.00 p.m in the Kallidaikurichi Sampathimedu Road, the detenues/accused persons waylaid one Sukumar and jointly committed murder of the said Sukumar and therefore, the Law Enforcing Authority registered a case in Crime No.120 of 2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC altered into Sections 147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC. Thereafter, on 16.05.2022, all the accused were arrested by the Law Enforcing Authority and considering the propensity of the occurrence and the same was created panic in that locality, the detaining authority passed the detention order on the basis of the materials furnished by the sponsoring authority through the impugned detention order dated 08.06.2022.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions assailed the impugned detention orders that as per Section 8(1) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982, the documents relied by the detaini
Hare Ram Pandey vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
Jasbir Singh v. Lt.Governor, Delhi and another
Senthamilselvi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
State of Tamilnadu and another v. Nabila and another
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, which mandates the communication of grounds of detention to the detenu within....
Failure to inform detained individuals of their arrest and not supplying documents does not automatically invalidate detention under preventive law unless it hinders effective legal representation.
The gravity and nature of the act are relevant in determining the necessity of detention under the Acts.
The impairment of subjective satisfaction and non-application of mind in the grounds of the impugned preventive detention orders led to the dislodgement of the orders, emphasizing the importance of u....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the detenu's rights, including adequate notice for hearings, provision of necessary legal documents, and consideration ....
Expression “compelling reasons” in context of making an order for preventive detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent materials before detaining authority.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.