Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1862 (MAD)

Vijaya v. Principal Secretary to Government

2014-07-02

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2ndrespondent passed in BDFGISSV No.569/2013, dated 31.07.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J-8 Neelankarai Police Station Crime No.831/2013 302 IPC 2. J-3 Guindy Police Station Crime No.622/2013 457, 511 IPC 3. J-5 Shastri Nagar Police Station Crime No.1271/2013 294(b), 386, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 13.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-5 Shastri Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1281/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 427, 392 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. Amidst several grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to attack the impugned order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is no arrest intimation in respect of the first adverse case in Crime No.831 of 2013 as well as the second adverse case in Crime No.622 of 2013 and the detaining authority failed to ask clarification from the sponsoring authority about non serving of arrest memo in respect of the first and second adverse cases to the family members, relatives or friends of the detenu and there is no proof to show that the intimation of arrest was given, which clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. Though it is stated that the detenu has been formally arrested in the first adverse case and he has been informed of the same, on verification of the booklet, particularly Page No.195, it is seen that no intimation has been given either to the family members or the friends of the detenu. Similarly, from Page No.229 of the booklet, it is seen that the arrest of the detenu in respect of the second adverse case in Crime No.622 of 2013, has not been informed to the family members and friends of the detenu. Similarly, from Page No.229 of the booklet, it is seen that the arrest of the detenu in respect of the second adverse case in Crime No.622 of 2013, has not been informed to the family members and friends of the detenu. No proof has been annexed in the booklet with regard to intimation of arrest of detenu in respect of the first and second adverse cases to the family members, relatives or friends as mandated by the Constitution. It is to be remembered that in order to meet fairness, justness and reasonableness, after a person is taken into custody in pursuance of an order of detention, the members of his household, preferably the parent, the child or the spouse, must be informed in writing of the passing of the order of detention and of the fact that the detenu has been taken into custody, by duly intimating as to the place of detention, including the place where the detenu is transferred from time to time, which would ensure the right of the person arrested under preventive detention. If such intimation of arrest has not been made effectively, then, it would confer a right upon the arrestee to impugn the arrest effected on him. 6. In the case on hand, there is no proof to exhibit such intimation of arrest in the first and second adverse cases to the family members of the detenu. Thus, on account of the failure of the detaining authority in communicating the arrest of detenu to the family members, the detention order would be vitiated on the ground of deprivation of right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Siva @ Vishvalingam, S/o.Velayutham, made in BDFGISSV No.569/2013 dated 31.07.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. 8. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.