Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1960 (MAD)

Manjula Devi v. State of Tamil Nadu

2017-07-11

A.SELVAM, P.KALAIYARASAN

body2017
ORDER : A. SELVAM, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records relating to the Detention Order passed in C.M.P.No.41/G/2016/E1 dated 14.12.2016, by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Kutti Thamban @ Thamburaj @ Murugan, aged 35 years, S/o. Aaran, residing at Door No.152, Nandhanar Colony, Palladam Road, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District and quash the same. 2. The Inspector of Police, Mahalingapuram Police Station, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred that on 17.10.2016, one Senthilkumar, as Defacto complaint, has given a complaint against the detenu and the same has been registered in Crime No.189 of 2016 under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu. 3. The Detaining Authority, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected materials, has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu has committed serious nature of offences and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the wife of the detenu, as petitioner, has filed the present petition. 4. On the side of the respondents, a counter has been filed, wherein, it is contended inter alia to the effect that the Detaining Authority, viz., the second respondent herein, after considering all the materials supplied to him, has rightly invoked Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and the same does not call for any interference and altogether, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that on the side of the detenu, a representation has been given, but the same has not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representation submitted on the side of the detenu has been duly disposed of without delay and therefore, the Detention Order need not be quashed. 7. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representation submitted on the side of the detenu has been duly disposed of without delay and therefore, the Detention Order need not be quashed. 7. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein, it has been clearly stated that in between column Nos.7 and 9, 4 clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay and that the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 8. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order dated 14.12.2016 passed in C.M.P.No.41/G/2016/E1 by the second respondent against the detenu by name, Kutti Thamban @ Thamburaj @ Murugan, aged 35 years, S/o. Aaran, residing at Door No.152, Nandhanar Colony, Palladam Road, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.