IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.12.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

and

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM

H.C.P. No.2244 of 2018

Mahalakshmi

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.State of Tamil Nadu represented

by Secretary to Government

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records

relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent

pertaining to the order made in Memo No.850/BCDFGISSSV/2018

dated 19.09.2018 in detain the detenu under 2(f) of Tamil Nadu

Act 14 of 1982 as a IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDER and quash the same

and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Prabakar @

Shyam, son of Ayyankan, aged 42 years, who is detained at

Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and

set him at liberty.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.N.Velsankar

For Respondents

:

Mr.R.Prathap Kumar

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J]

The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, namely,

Prabhakar @ Shyam, Son of Ayyankan, age 42 years, challenges the

impugned

order

of

detention,

dated

19.09.2018

in

No.850/BCDFGISSSV/2018 detaining her husband as "IMMORAL TRAFFIC

OFFENDER", as contemplated under Section 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu

Prevention of dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug

Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil

Nadu Act 14/1982).

2. The detenu has come to adverse notice in the following

case:-

S.No. Police Station & Crime No.

Section of Law

1.

Anti Vice Squad-II,

Crime No.42/2018

3(2)a, 4(1) & 5(1)a of ITP

Act

2.

Anti Vice Squad-1

Crime No.104/2018

3(2)a, 4(1) & 5(1)a, 6(1) & 7

(1) of ITP Act

The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime

No.45/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Anti Vice

Squad Police Station for offences u/s 3(2)a, 4(1) & 5(1)a, 6(1)

& 7(1) of ITP Act. The detention order has been passed by

second respondent in No.850/BCDFGISSSV/2018 on 19.09.2018.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the

Detaining Authority.

4. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas

Corpus Petition,

the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-

application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in

passing the order of detention.

5. The Grounds of Detention would reveal that 2 adverse

cases have been registered against the detenu and a ground case

was registered against him in Cr.No.45/2018 for the offences

u/s.3(2)a, 4(1) & 5(1)a, 6(1) & 7(1) of ITP Act. Admittedly,

the detenu has moved bail application in the second adverse case

in Crime No.104/2018 and the same is pending before the IV

Metropolitan

Magistrate

Court,

Saidapet,

Chennai

in

Crl.M.P.No.1757/2018. He has also moved bail application in the

ground case and 1^st adverse case and the same were dismissed on

14.09.2018 by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Poonamallee in

Crl.M.P.Nos.4773 & 4775/2018. Therefore, the probability of

release of the detenu imminently does not arise. Hence, we are

inclined to set aside the detention order. Though the detaining

authority has made reliance on similar case, in which an accused

was granted bail, the facts involved in those cases are

different. The principle of similarity cannot be applied

mechanically. Normally, bails are granted based on the facts

and circumstances of each case. Therefore, similar ca