Madras High Court
S.Selvi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 July, 2021
H.C.P.(MD) No.93 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :08.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
H.C.P.(MD) No.93 of 2021
S.Selvi ... Petitioner/Mother of the
detenu
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirappalli City,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.93 of 2021
records in detention order passed in C.No.
34/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2020, dated 17.12.2020, on the file of the
second respondent and to set aside the same as illegal and to direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of the Petitioner's son
namely, Veerappan @ Rajkumar, son of Sappani, male, aged about 20
years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this
Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Standing Counsel for the State
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.)
This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the mother of the
detenu, namely,Veerappan @ Rajkumar, son of Sappani, aged about 20
years, challenging the detention order in C.No.
34/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2020, dated 17.12.2020, passed by the second
respondent, branding him as “Goonda” as contemplated under Section
2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2.Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, learned counsel for the petitioner, would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.93 of 2021
argue that in the booklet, the Detaining Authority has enclosed the
illegible copies at Page No.80 and 107. However, despite representation
submitted by the Petitioner to furnish clear copies of the illegible
documents, no document was supplied and no explanation was also
forth-coming for non-furnishing of the documents. In this regard, the
learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the decision of the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of G.Kalaiselvi vs. The State of Tamil
Nadu reported in (2007)5 CTC 657.
3.Mr.S.Ravi, learned Standing Counsel for the State, appearing
for the respondents, while reiterating the counter filed by the second
respondent, submitted that the Petitioner has four adverse cases to his
credit and taking note of the antecedents of the detenu, the second
respondent has rightly clamped the order of detention. According to the
learned Standing Counsel for the State, there is no illegality or
irregularity in the detention order warranting interference by this Court.
The learned Standing Counsel would also state that the remand order
has been typed and extracted at Page No.108 of the booklet and hence,
no prejudice would be caused to the detenu in view of the non-supply of
the documents as sought for by him and hence, prayed for dismissal of
the habeas corpus petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.93 of 2021
4.Heard the rival submissions made on either side carefully
and perused the materials placed before this Court.
5.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the detenu has
been detained by the order of the second respondent, dated 17.12.2020,
wherein, he has been branded as ''Goonda''. In the booklet furnished to
the detenu, page No.80 and 107 are found to be illegible copies. In the
representation of the Petitioner, they have sought for clear copies of the
illegible documents enclosed in the booklet. Admittedly, those documents
have not been furnished to the detenu and there is no explanation also
given for non-furnishing of the documents. The Full Bench of this Court
in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, has
categorically held that though some of the documents are not relied on
documents, but when the detenu has sought for those documents, it is
the duty of the respondents to furnish the same or they have to give
explanation for the non-supply of the documents. We are of the of the
opinion that the judgment referred to above, would squarely apply to the
case of the Petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.93 of 2021
8. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detention order in C.No.34/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2020, dated
17.12.2020, passed by the second respondent, is set aside.
Consequently, the detenu, namely,Veerappan @ Rajkumar, son of
Sappani, aged about 20 years, who is now detained at Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or
custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [B.P.,J.]
08.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
To:
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.93 of 2021
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirappalli City,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.93 of 2021
vsn
ORDER MADE IN
H.C.P.(MD) No.93 of 2021
08.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
