Madras High Court
Rajeswari vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.3236 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
H.C.P.No.3236 of 2024
Rajeswari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Chennai
3.The Superintendent of Police
Special Prison for Women
Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Investigation Officer
EDF-II, Central Crime Branch
Chennai
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.3236 of 2024
5.The Inspector of Police
K-3, Aminjikrai Police Station
Chennai ... Respondents
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the
records relating to the detention order No.1153/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated
23.11.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent and to produce the petitioner's
daughter in law viz. Jayasakthi, W/o.Lokesh, aged about 24 years, the
detenue now confined in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai
600066, before this Court and set the petitioner's daughter in law at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Subburaj
for M/s.C.M.Ramakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.M.Sylvestor John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The petitioner, mother in law of the detenu viz. Jayasakthi, aged about
24 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.11.2024 slapped on her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
daughter in law, branding her as "GOONDA" 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 14 of 1982].
2. Mr.K.Subburaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun V.
The State of Maharashtra and others case. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor by filing counter objected to the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner.
3.Among the various grounds raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the occurrence in
the ground case had happened within the house of the complainant, it
cannot be termed as 'to create alarm and feeling of insecurity' in the minds
of the people and could not be prejudicial to the manner of public order.
Such a submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
supported by a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case
of Arjun V. The State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Appeal No...
of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.12516 of 2024), wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had held as follows:
".......
15.As to whether a case would amount to threat to the
public order or as to whether it would be such which can be
dealt with by the ordinary machinery in exercise of its powers
of maintaining law and order would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. For example, if somebody commits
a brutal murder within the four corners of a house, it will not
be amounting to a threat to the public order. ......." (emphasis
supplied).
4.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the offence in the ground
case was committed within the house of the complainant. By applying the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun V. The State of
Maharashtra and others case, we are of the view that the detaining
authority was not correct in coming to the subjective satisfaction that by
involving himself in the crime, the convict prisoner had not acted in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence, on the above
grounds, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.
5. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
2nd respondent dated 23.11.2024 in No.1153/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz.,
Jayasakthi, W/o.Lokesh, aged about 24 years, is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]
17.02.2025
(5/6)
kas
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
kas
3.The Superintendent of Police
Special Prison for Women
Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Investigation Officer
EDF-II, Central Crime Branch
Chennai
5.The Inspector of Police
K-3, Aminjikrai Police Station
Chennai
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 108
17.02.2025
(5/6)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
