Madras High Court
C. Binny vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1047 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.1047 of 2024
C. Binny ... Petitioner/Father of the Detenu
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City – 641 604.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Police Station,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1047 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the
detention order passed by the second respondent in C.No. 04/G/IS/2024
dated 05.02.2024 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to
produce the petitioner's son namely B.Sabari Son of C.Binny, aged about 22
years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court
and set at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dinesh Sharma
For Respondents : Mr. E. Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated
05.02.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
Arrest Intimation was not provided to the detenu.
4. That apart, the document enclosed at page no. 235 in volume -
II of the booklet served on the detenu is illegible, which caused prejudice to
the detenu to submit his representation in an effective manner.
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported
in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the
safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the
detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation
effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every
material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is
imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:
“9.However, this Court has maintained a
distinction between a document which has been relied
upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of
detention and a document which finds a mere reference
in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of
a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
detention has been held to be fatal to continued
detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice
is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such
a document would amount to denial of the right of
being communicated the grounds and of being afforded
the opportunity of making an effective representation
against the order. But it would not be so where the
document merely finds a reference in the order of
detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case,
the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has
to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making
an effective representation. What applies to a document
would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of
the document in the language known to and understood
by the detenu, should the document be in a different
language.
..... 16.For the above reasons, in our view, the
non-supply of the Tamil version of the English
document, on the facts and in the circumstances,
renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore,
direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is
required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is
accordingly allowed.”
6. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor mainly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
raised an objection on the ground that the detenu has involved in many such
criminal cases and those cases are also pending.
7. However, the fact remains that the detenu was arrested on
12.01.2024 and under preventive detention for merely about 10 months.
8. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to confirm the
order of detention, since it is on the verge of lapse. The case registered
against the detenu can be dealt with under the law of the land.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings C.No.04/G/IS/2024 dated 05.02.204 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
B.Sabari, aged 22 years, S/o. Binny confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore
is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in
connection with any other case
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
17.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City – 641 604.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Police Station,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
