SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR, JJ.
Nisha – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Exercise Department, Chennai & Others – Respondents
H.C.P. No. 1681 of 2022
Decided On : 01-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:J. Milton Arul Rajendran, Advocate. For the Respondents:R. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by. M. Sylvester John, Advocate.

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.

Headnote:

Habeas Corpus - Detention under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drugoffenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982) - Act 14 of 1982 - Section 2(e)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the detention order of her husband under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drugoffenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the detention order was based on the premise that the detenu was a 'Drug Offender' under section 2(e) of Act 14 of 1982. The court dismissed the habeas corpus petition as it did not find merit in the petitioner's arguments against the detention order.

Issues: The issues included the legality of the detention order under the specified act, the possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail, and the sufficiency of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the detenu's father had taken steps to seek bail, which was granted, and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was found to be based on material.

Final Decision: The habeas corpus petition was dismissed by the court.

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 in C.O.C.No.15/22 dated 23.06.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner''s husband detenu namely Maheswaran, son of Subramani, aged about 26 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli and set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.,

1. This order will now dispose of the captioned matter.

2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 27.02.2023, which reads as follows:

‘In the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity], a ''detention order dated 23.06.2022 bearing reference C.O.C.No.15/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] made by the jurisdictional District Collector, i.e., second respondent [hereinafter ''Detaining Authority'' for the sake of convenience] has been called in question by the wife of the detenu.

2. In and by the impugned detention order, preventive detention has been clamped qua detenu on the premise that the detenu is a ''Drug Offender'' within the meaning of section 2(e) of ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drugoffenders, 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 sake of convenience and clarity].

3. We are informed that the date of arrest in the ground case is 01.05.2022. Mr.J.Milton Arul Rajendran, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John are before us.

4. Before we plunge into the legal drill of testing the impugned detention order, it is necessary to capture (in this proceedings) what transpired in the hearing today.

5. As learned counsel for petitioner in his campaign against impugned detention order attempted to assail the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority qua imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail, the question as to whether any bail petition has been filed came up. Learned Prosecutor, on instructions from the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruthuraipoondi Circle, Thiruvarur (5th respondent Police Station herein) submitted that charge sheet in the ground case has been filed within the stipulated time frame but it came to light that the petitioner appears to have filed an application for default bail vide Crl.M.P.No.5558 of 2022 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and the same has been allowed on 31.10.2022. To be noted, default bail plea is under section 167(2) of ''The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973'' [hereinafter ''Cr.P.C.'' for the sake of convenience].

6. Faced with the above situation, learned Prosecutor requested for time to ascertain the correct position and revert to us.

7. Let the Investigating Officer remain present before us in the next listing. List on 01.03.2023.’

3. The aforementioned proceedings have to be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. Therefore the short forms and abbreviations used in the earlier proceedings will continue to be used in the instant order also.

4. Adverting to earlier proceedings both sides have placed before us an order dated 31.10.2022 made by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.5558 of 2022 in Crime No.203 of 2022, wherein default bail under Section 167(2) of ''Criminal Procedure Code, 1973'' [hereinafter ''Cr.P.C.'' for brevity] has been granted.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is instructed by Mr.M.Kazhaniyappan, Inspector of Police in Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top