H.C.P.No.2267 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

H.C.P.No.2267 of 2022

Saroja

W/o.Saminathan

.. Petitioner/Mother of Detenu

Vs.

1.State of Tamilnadu,

Rep. by the Secretary Home

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St. George,

Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police,

Salem City Police,

Salem.

3.The Superintendent of Prison,

Salem Central Prison,

Salem.

4.The Inspector of Police,

Sooramangalam Police Station,

Salem City.

.. Respondents

Page Nos.1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

H.C.P.No.2267 of 2022

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the

detention order in C.M.P.No.133/Goonda/Salem City/2022, dated 18.10.2022

passed by the 2^nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set

aside the same subsequently direct the respondents to produce petitioner's

son Kumar, son of Saminathan aged about 31 years the detenu, now confined

in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner

:

Dr.S.Manoharan

for Mr.M.Subash

For Respondents

:

Mr.R.Muniyapparaj

Additional Public Prosecutor

assisted by

Mr.M.Sylvester John, Advocate

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has

been filed by mother of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated

18.10.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.133/Goonda/Salem City/2022'

[hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and

brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and

second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has

been made by second respondent.

Page Nos.2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

H.C.P.No.2267 of 2022

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 is one adverse case and one ground case. The ground case

which is the substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.642 of

2022 on the file of Sooramangalam Police Station for an alleged offence

under Sections 342, 364, 323, 364(A) and 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and

Sections 4 and 5 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest

Act, 2003. 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. Dr.S.Manoharan, learned counsel representing the counsel on record

Page Nos.3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

H.C.P.No.2267 of 2022

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. In the support affidavit of captioned HCP several points have been

urged/raised but in the hearing Dr.S.Manoharan, learned counsel for

petitioner projected his campaign against the impugned preventive detention

order on one point and that one point finds favour with us. To be noted, this

one point pertains to subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining

authority qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail.

Elaborating on this point, learned counsel took us through paragraph 4 of the

impugned detention order and the most r