Madras High Court
Mukul Chandel vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2644 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2644 of 2024
Mukul Chandel ... Petitioner/Detenu
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Additional Chief Secretariat to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore District.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore - 18.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Coimbatore City Cyber Crime Police Station,
Coimbatore District
Crime No.158 of 2024 ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2644 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct to produce the body of the
petitioner detenue Mukul Chandel son of Neeraj Kumar Chandel aged about
24 years presently confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this court
and set him at liberty forthwith after calling for the records pertaining to the
detention order dated 31.07.2024 in C.NO. 92/G/IS/2024 passed by the 2nd
Respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabakar
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
31.07.2024 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.
3. Most of the documents enclosed along with the booklet served
on the detenu have not been translated and furnished to the detenu in the
language known to him. The detenu is a native of Madhya Pradesh and the
known language is Hindi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
5. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings C.No.92/G/IS/2024 dated 31.07.2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Mukul Chandel, aged 24 years, S/o. Neeraj Kumar Chandel 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.]
30.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Additional Chief Secretariat to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore District.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore - 18.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Coimbatore City Cyber Crime Police Station,
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
30.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
