High CourtsDivision Bench

Kutti (a) Parasuraman vs State of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court · Decided on 27 June 2006 · Citation: (2006) 06 MAD CK 0045

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Dhanapalan, J · P. Sathasivam, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 220 of 2006

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 362 words

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Kutti @ Parasuraman, who is detained as a ''''Goonda"" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and

Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 30.12.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3.

At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the detaining authority has stated that the detenu was in

remand in the ground case in Bagayam Police Station Crime No. 565 of 2005, the copy of the remand order passed in the aforesaid ground case

has not been furnished to the detenu. On this ground, the detention order is vitiated. It is also contended that based on his representation dated

30.01.2006, the first respondent assured the detenu that the copy of the remand order will be supplied to him. But the same has not been supplied.

On this ground also detention order is liable to be interfered.

4.

In the light of the above submission, we have verified the paper book supplied to the detenu as well as the reply of the Government dated

21.02.2006. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly states that the copy of the remand order in Crime No. 565 of 2005 has not been

furnished to him. It is also stated that even after the direction of the Government in their letter dated 21.02.2006, the detenu was not supplied with

the copy of the remand order. Inasmuch as the remand order was a relied upon document by the detaining authority and also taking note of the

fact that inspite of the direction by the higher authority-Government, the same was not supplied to the detenu, we hold that the detention order is

vitiated on both the grounds.

4.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty

forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.