Madras High Court
Mohamed Rizwan vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.3235 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.3235 of 2024
Mohamed Rizwan ... 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
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section)
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Special Prison for Women
Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
4.The Inspector of Police
K-3, Aminjikrai Police Station
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.3235 of 2024
Chennai 600 029 ... 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.1155/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated
23.11.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same an direct the
respondent herein to produce the petitioner's sister in law namely Seema
Begum, W/o.Nazhir Ahmed, aged about 39 years (who is presently
undergoing detention in Central Prison for Women, Puzhal), before this
Court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Elango
Senior Advocate
for M/s.A.S.Aswin Prasanna
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, brother in law of the detenue viz. Seema Begum, aged
about 39 years W/o.Nazhir Ahamed, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23.11.2024 slapped on her sister, 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. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. The learned Senior
counsel 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Such a submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
involving himself in the crime, the convict prisoner had not acted in a
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.1155/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz.,
Seema Begum, W/o.Nazhir Ahmed, aged about 39 years, is directed to be
set at liberty forthwith unless she is required in connection with any other
case.
[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]
17.02.2025
(2/6)
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
kas
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section)
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Special Prison for Women
Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
4.The Inspector of Police
K-3, Aminjikrai Police Station
Chennai 600 029
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 108
17.02.2025
(2/6)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
