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 of all relevant cases for arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail.

ORDER :

M.Sundar, J.

Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by the spouse of a detenu assailing a 'detention order dated 04.11.2022 bearing reference C3/D.O/32/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience] made by the 'jurisdictional District Collector and District Magistrate i.e., second respondent' [hereinafter 'detaining authority' for the sake of convenience]. In and by the impugned detention order the detenu has been branded as 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Slum grabbers and Video Priates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience]. The detenu was arrested in cases [cited as adverse and the ground cases in the impugned detention order] on 23.10.2022.

2. Suffice to say that the ground case is Crime No.467 of 2022 for alleged offences under Sections 447, 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of brevity] on the file of Puthuchathiram Police Station [Cuddalore District]. There is one adverse case and the same is Crime No.392 of 2022 for alleged offences under Sections 454 and 380 IPC which is also on the file of the same Police Station, namely, Puthuchathiram Police Station.

3. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for petitioner assisted by Mr.A.Ramesh for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.Sylvester John for respondents are before us.

4. Notwithstanding several averments and grounds in the support affidavit qua the captioned HCP in the hearing before us, learned counsel for petitioner in his campaign against the impugned detention order raised the following points:

i. The Advisory Board met on 16.12.2022 at 1.00 p.m. but the notice for this hearing was served on the detenu in the Prison barely 24 hours earlier i.e., on 15.12.2022 at 12.30 p.m. This has hampered the rights of the detenu qua prosecuting his case before the Advisory Board.

ii. The detenu was remanded in the adverse case as well as the ground case. In the 'grounds of detention order supplied to the detenu in the form of a booklet' [hereinafter 'said booklet' for the sake of convenience] though the remand requisitions have been provided at Page No.29 [adverse case] and Page No.70 [ground case] the remand orders have not been provided. This has caused infraction of petitioner's rights to make an effective representation against impugned detention order.

iii. The Form of order for detention and custody of an accused person under Section 57 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) [hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of convenience] has been given in the said booklet at Page No.72 but a Tamil translation of the same has not been provided. It is submitted that the literacy level of the detenu is 10th Standard in School, he is conversant in mother tongue Tamil only and therefore this has hampered his right to make an effective representation against the impugned detention order.

iv. As regards imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail only the ground case has been considered and the adverse case has not been considered though the detenu has been remanded in both the cases. Therefore, the impugned detention order is hit by the vice of non application of mind.

5. In response to the aforementioned points canvassed and exhorted by learned counsel for petitioner in the hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor made submissions, a summation of which is as follows:

(i) The Advisory Board was originally convened on 09.12.2022 but the detenu could not be produced before Advisory Board that day owing to inclement weather and heavy rains. 16.12.2022 is only an adjourned date and therefore it cannot be said that the accused was not given adequate time.

(ii)The re