Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2018 (MAD)

G. Ellammal v. State

2024-08-20

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, V.SIVAGNANAM

body2024
ORDER : (Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in relating to the order of detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 14.12.2023 in Rc.No.253/M6/2023/DO No.44/2023 against the petitioner's husband, the Detenue, Guna @ Gunasekaran, Male, aged about 45 years, son of Namasivayam, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty. The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent is sought to be assailed in the present habeas corpus petition. 2. The grounds of detention would reveal that number of cases are pending against the detenue. 3. The impugned detention order has been passed on 14.12.2023. The detaining Authority was satisfied that the detenu is habitually indulging in robbery, attempt to murder and acting against public tranquility thereby acting in a manner which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order and as such he is a "GOONDA" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 4. To substantiate the above reasoning and to establish nexus, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit a report stating about the bad antecedents of detenue namely Guna @ Gunasekaran. The number of cases pending against the detenue are as under: 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the detenue has involved in heinuous offences. Therefore, the detaining authority has every reason to believe that there is likelihood of causing breach of public order and thus the habeas corpus petition is to be rejected. 6. Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the Government Order furnished to the detenue has not been translated and some of the documents are not translated in the language known to the detenue. 7. Though certain technical grounds are raised, the ground case in the present case, undoubtedly has nexus to the objective sought to be achieved through preventive detention. Therefore, the detaining authority is justified in forming an opinion that there is a likelihood of causing breach of public order. 7. Though certain technical grounds are raised, the ground case in the present case, undoubtedly has nexus to the objective sought to be achieved through preventive detention. Therefore, the detaining authority is justified in forming an opinion that there is a likelihood of causing breach of public order. However, the detaining authority has not taken efforts to ensure that the procedures as contemplated under Act 14 of 1982 has been complied with scrupulously. 8. The Government Order has not been translated and some of the documents served on the detenue has not been translated, the said defect caused prejudice to the interest of the detenue to submit representation in an effective manner. 9. That apart, the detenue was arrested on 14.12.2023 and has undergone imprisonment for about 08 months. When a person is under preventive detention for about 08 months and when the procedures are not followed scrupulously, this Court has no option but to invoke discretionary powers, so as to assail the detention order. 10. Preventive detention is not penal in nature but is only a regulatory measure to the prevent commission of crimes the balance between the right to personal liberty and the public order must be achieved. While adopting a pragmatic approach, the antecedent of the detenue is also to be taken into consideration by the Courts. 11. In the present case, the detenue has bad antecedents with reference to the number of cases pending against him as furnished by the respondents. However, we took note of the fact that the detenue is under preventive detention for about 08 months and further continuance would not serve any purpose or object sought to be achieved under the preventive detention law. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in proceedings Rc.No.253/2023/M6-D.O.No.44/2023 dated 14.12.2023 is quashed and the habeas corpus petition stands allowed. The detenue viz., Guna @ Gunasekaran, S/o. Namachivayam, Male, aged 45 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.