ORDER

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

Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by father of the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 09.03.2023 bearing reference Rc.No.50/2023/M6-D.O.No.08/2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity] made by second respondent (hereinafter 'detaining authority' for the sake of convenience). To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority.

2. Impugned preventive 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 'Cyber Law Offender' within the meaning of Section 2(bb) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There is no adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.15 of 2022 on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station Kancheepuram for alleged offences under Sections 420, 506(i) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] r/w 66C, 66D, 67A of 'The Information Technology Act, 2000' (hereinafter 'IT Act' for the sake of brevity). Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned preventive detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.J.Ranjith Kumar, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind, learned counsel, for all respondents are before us.

5. When the matter was taken up, Mr.J.Ranjith Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the co-accused in the ground case Thiru.Vagith, aged 25 years, Son of Thiru.Shabudeen, was also clamped with preventive detention order also dated 09.03.2023, the same was challenged by way of H.C.P.No.875 of 2023 and the preventive detention order in Vagith's case was set aside by this Court in and by an order dated 12.09.2023, which has since been reported in Neutral Citation Portal of Madras High Court and the Neutral Citation reference is 2023:MHC:4202.

6. A scanned reproduction of this order as reported in the Neutral Citation is as follows:

7. There is no disputation or contestation that in the case on hand also, the detenu was arrested on 04.02.2023 and the same Banik principle applies to the case on hand. We remind ourselves of the age old adage 'Sauce to Goose is sauce to Gander too'. Therefore, we have no hesitation in saying that the impugned preventive detention order in the captioned matter also deserves to be dislodged in this heabes legal drill.

8. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 09.03.2023 bearing reference Rc.No.50/2023/M6-D.O.No.08/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Allaudeen, aged 27 years, Son of Thiru.Shabudeen, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.

(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.)

26.09.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.

To

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 66.

5.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Kancheepuram District. 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., mmi H.C.P.No.873 of 2023

26.09.2023