Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Panchavaram @ Panchavarnam – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of detention dated 05.07.2022 vide Memo No.66/BCDFGISSSV/2022 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to set forth the detenu Manikandan @ Kullamani, aged 31 years now confined in Central Prison-II, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty)
M. Sundar, J.
1. 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 Memo No.66/BCDFGISSSV/2022'' (hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience). To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.
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, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the
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 subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the grounds for preventive detention must be based on valid and relevant considerations.
The reliance on a bail order granted during the Covid-19 situation to assess the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail impaired the subjective satisfaction of the detaining author....
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 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.
Non-application of mind by the detaining authority in making a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.
Preventive detention is not a punishment and should be carefully applied, ensuring the proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
The impaired subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the detenu's imminent possibility of being enlarged on bail led to the setting aside of the impugned preventive detention ord....
The unexplained delay between the date of remand in the ground case and the date of the impugned detention order led to the snapping of the 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention ....
The impairment of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the detenue's imminent possibility of being enlarged on bail led to the setting aside of the impugned preventive det....
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
