HCP No.1475 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.02.2023

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.SUNDAR

and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

H.C.P. No.1475 of 2022

Chinnaraj

S/o.Raman

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. by its Additional Secretary to Government,

Department of Prohibition and Excise [Home],

Fort St.George ,

Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police,

Avadi City Police,

Office of the Commissioner of Police,

Avadi, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Inspector of Police,

T-1 Ambattur Police Station,

Chennai.

4.The Superintendent of Prison,

Central Prison-II,

Puzhal, Chennai.

... Respondents

1/11

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

HCP No.1475 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 in Memo

No.71/BCDFGISSSV/2022, dated 05.07.2022 on the file of by the second

respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenu

Manickam, son of Chinnaraj, aged about 24 years who is confined at

Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy

For Respondents

:

Mr.R.Muniyapparaj

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

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

Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of

convenience and brevity] has been filed by the father of the detenu assailing

'detention

order

dated

05.07.2022

bearing

reference

No.71/BCDFGISSSV/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the

sake of convenience] made by the 'second respondent' [hereinafter

'detaining authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

2.Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy, learned counsel for petitioner and

Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents

are before us.

3.We are informed by both sides that as regards two co-accused in

2/11

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

HCP No.1475 of 2022

the ground case also preventive detention orders were clamped and the

preventive detention orders as regards two co-accused are identical. The

same were challenged by way of H.C.P.Nos.1460 and 1474 of 2022 and the

similar preventive detention orders were set aside by this Court by order

dated 27.02.2023, which reads as follows:

This common order will now govern the captioned

two 'Habeas Corpus Petitions' [hereinafter 'HCP' in singular

and 'HCPs' in plural for the sake of convenience and

clarity].

2.For the sake of convenience, 'H.C.P.No.1460 of

2022' shall be referred to as 'I HCP' and 'H.C.P.No.1474 of

2022' shall be referred to as 'II HCP'.

3.In 'I HCP', a detention order dated 05.07.2022

bearing reference Memo No.70/BCDFGISSSV/2022 has

been assailed by a friend of the detenu and in the 'II HCP', a

detention order dated 05.07.2022 bearing reference Memo

No.72/BCDFGISSSV/2022 has been assailed by a friend of

the detenu. [These two impugned detention orders qua I

HCP and II HCP, respectively shall hereinafter be referred

as 'I impugned detention order' and 'II impugned detention

order', respectively for the sake of convenience and clarity]

[to be noted the two orders shall be collectively referred to

as 'impugned detention orders' for the sake of convenience].

3/11

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

HCP No.1475 of 2022

4.Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy, learned counsel for

petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John for the

respondents in both captioned HCPs are before us.

5.Notwithstanding very many averments in the

support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner in his

campaign against the impugned detention orders predicated

his argument on the point that there is delay in making the

detention orders. Adverting to I and II HCPs, learned

counsel submitted that the detenus were arrest