Full copy of pubji madan case IN THE HIGH COUER OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Criminal Side Jurisdiction) H.C.P.No. of 2021 Madan Kumar [M/ 29 Years], s/o Manickam, No.31/58, Srirangan Street, Thadagapatti, Salem-636006. …Petitioner/ Detenue. —— M/s S. CONSCIOUS ILANGO V. Kasinatha bharathi M.P. Venkatakrishnan A. Arikrishnan Counsel For Petitioner madan

IN THE HIGH COUER OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Side Jurisdiction)

H.C.P.No. of 2021

Madan Kumar [M/ 29 Years],
s/o Manickam,
No.31/58, Srirangan Street,
Thadagapatti,
Salem-636006. …Petitioner/ Detenue

Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government (Home)
Prohibition and Exercise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery,
Chennai 600 007.

3. The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Cell,
Central Crime Branch,
Vepery, Chennai- 7

4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai 600 066. …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF MADAN KUMAR

I Madan Kumar s/o Manickam, aged about 29 years and residing at No.31/58, Srirangan Street, Thadagapatti, Salem-636006.District do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I submit that I am the Petitioner herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The above Writ petition is filed prayingfor a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detentionorder in181/BCDFGISSSV/2021 DATED 05/07/2021 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same consequently produce the detenueMadan Kumar,aged about 29 years S/oManickamnow confined in Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon’ble Court and set me at liberty forthwith.
2. I am residing at the above said address and I am a native of Salem district. I am aB.E. graduate and. I fell in love with one Kiruthiga of Salem and on 03/01/2020 we both got married and since then we are residing at a rental premise at Vegaivasal in Chennai. I am blessed with a male child who is only eight months old now. I am running two Youtube channels in the name “Madan” and “Toxic MADAN 18+”. I have attached the bank account of my wife Kiruthika held in Axis Bank with one of theYoutube channel to receive the payments from the channel. There is no income from the other Youtube channel. I used to play the PUBG games in the above Youtube channel in live streaming which was not prohibited one. I used to play the PUBG game very proficiently and nearly for eighteen hours a day and this attracted lot of people and they subscribed to myYoutube channels. As of now there are nearly 775000 subscribers to my channels. Initially I played the PUBG game and thereafter downloaded the same in myYoutube channel and in Course of time,on seeing me playing very well in a talentedway, the subscribers to my channel increased and I started to play in live stream. During such live streaming if any comments are posted in the comment box I used to reply to the same while playing the game. Even if worst comments with abusive words were made with an intention to distract me while playing the game, I wouldn’t mind to it and used to respond in a very calm and diplomatic manner. This way of responding and continuing to play the game attracted lot of male subscribers in the age group of twenties. Further I don’t play the Chinese version of the PUBG game which is banned by the Government of India where as I used to play the KOREAN version of the game which is not prohibited or banned by the government and a copy of the same hasn’t been furnished in thebooklet annexed with a view to hamper the sending of proper and effective representation. As the subscribers to MY channel increased enormously, the same has led to envy among the people who also own similar you tube channels. Four people among them, who also own similar you tube channels, entered in to a conspiracy among within themselves with a view to attract the subscribers of my Youtube channel by tarnishing my image and name. It is in continuation of their ugly conspiracy they continued to post in the comment box the edited videos of me using bad words and it was posted in the comment box in such a way as if the same was repeatedly spoken by me. Following the same in continuation of their conspiracy one among them by name Joe Michael Pravin gave a complaint on 13/06/2021 to the Pulianthope Police station, two complaints were forwarded by two more persons among them and another one was given through one by name Abisheik Rafiq to the Deputy Commissioner of police [CCB]. All these complaints are purely born out of the business rivalry and the conspiracy to tarnish my image. It is as a consequence of the same alone the case in crime no: 11/2021 for the alleged commission of the offences under section 67, 67A of IT Act 294[b], 509 of IPC & section 4 of Indecent Representation of women [ Prohibition] Act 1986 was registered .

3. It is in these circumstances under the pretext as if various complaints are continued to be lodged against me, offences under section 420 of IPC was also subsequently added for the alleged defraud of an amount of Rs 57,000/- in all the complaints together and on the basis of the above single and solitary case on 05/07/2021 the detention order against me was also came to be passed invoking section 3[1] of the Under the Tamil nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, herein after referred as the Act.Tamilnadu Act 14/1982 branding me as Cyber Law Offender and I am continued to be held up in the custody.The said detention order is against law and not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be revoked for the following

GROUNDS
i. The detention order is illegal, without application of mind and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is also irrational.

ii. The grounds referred to in the detention order are not proximate to the order of detention and there is no rational nexus to the conclusions drawn in the detention order.

iii. The detenue is not a Cyber Law Offender as defined under the Act and the order of detention is arbitrary and an absolute violation of fundamental rights of the detenue which is guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India.

iv. The offences alleged to have beencommitted by the detenue did not affect the maintenance of Public order and thus the detention is vitiated and engineered one.

v. The act of the detenue in playing the game named PUBG could not in any way be construed to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order necessitating the detention order.

vi. In the absence of any materials for the disturbance to the public order as a consequence to the playing of game, the order of detention is illegal.

vii. The detaining authority has failed to apply his mind that the Korean version of the PUBG online game played by the detenue is not banned by the Government of India and it is only the Chinese version of the PUBG game alone is banned and hence the game played by the detenue is not a prohibited one leading to any violations.

viii.. The detaining authority has failed to consider the fact that the detenue has played only a game named PUBG and the issue has been raised by other Youtubers when the game played by the detenue has received vast appreciation among the youngsters leading to innumerous subscribers and the detenue has not at all published or transmitted any obscene material.

ix. The imminent possibility of the petitioner from coming out on bail was merely the ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever.

x. The detaining authority who has found that the bail petition was dismissed by the sessions court on 05.07.2021 and that there is no bail application was pending, failed to note that there is no real and imminent possibility of the detenue being released on bail.

xi. The detaining authority has failed to apply his mind that the similar case is not relating to the similar offences in the ground case and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is without any application of mind.

xii. The details relating to the date of the order granting bail in the alleged similar case and the number of days in custody were conveniently omitted and the first page of the order granting bail at page no: 514 of the booklet was also found missing and the copy of the same has to be furnished to me.

xiii. The offences under section 67, 67A of IT Act and section 420 of IPC would not at all be made out against the detenue and the insertion of the offence 420 in the name of alteration of offence, is not only illegal and motivated for the purpose of passing the order of detention and purely an abuse of process of law.

xiv. The copies of the documents referred to in the grounds of detention are not furnished to the detenue along with the booklet of papers and the copies of the above documents like Seizure Mahazar for the recovery of jewels, statement of accounts held with Axis Bank, records pertaining to the company by name “Madan Game Station Pvt. Ltd”, documents relating to attachment of the axis bank accounts with the above company etc has to be furnished to the detenue to make an effective representation to revoke the order of detention.

xv. The detenue who was arrested on 18/06/2021 at 12.30 hrs was kept in police custody for more than twenty four hours and was produced before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on 19/06/2021 at 2.10 p.m. and further the time of alleged confession of the detenue has also been altered to suppress the factum of illegal custody. hence the order of the magistrate authorizing the remand is illegal and the further custody and the continuation of the detention of the detenue is purely an illegal custody.

xvi. The arrest intimation alleged to have been served on the father of the detenue is not at all true and the same is without any material. Hence the arrest of the detenue itself is illegal and the further detention is also illegal.

xvii. The detaining authority failed to consider the fact that the persons shown to be the witnesses to the every mahazar, seizure and the alleged confession being the same set of persons are none other than the complainant himself and his friend and the same is only to suppress the factum of illegal detention of the detenue.

xviii. The pages vide page no. 15 to 26 and pages 253, 451 of the book let are not legible and the detenue was not served with clear copy enabling him to make an effective representation and the same has to be furnished to me.

xix. The arrest of the co-accused Kiruthiga on the allegation of being Admin of the Youtube channel and which was further stated to have been came to known on the verification of her Oppo purple colour cell phone while she was at Salem at the time of her arrest is contradicted by the very statement that her confession led to the recovery/production of the cellphone and other things at her residence at Chennai is fully contradictory with each other and self demolition of the case.
xx. The Statement made in the grounds of detention is more in the nature of ritual rather than any significance.

xxi. The case booked against the detenue can be tried under normal penal code and thus detention is unjust.

xxii. The Detaining authority has mechanically and in cavalier manner passed the impugned order of detention.

xxiii. The allegation that the co-accused Kiruthiga was an admin of the Youtube channel is without any materials and the detaining authority has failed to consider the same and furnish the copies pertaining to the same for sending an proper and effective representation.

xxiv. The detaining authority failed to consider the fact that the complainant in the case in crime no: 11 of 2021 itself is not in any way affected by any of the acts of Madan and the same is not supported by any documents and the detention order is based on the solitary case in cr.no 11/2021 where in no prima facie case itself is made out.

xxv. The documents pertaining to the similar case in pages 331- pages 536 of the booklet were not provided in both the Tamil and English version. The documents in Tamil were not in given English and vice versa. Hence the same has precluded me from giving an effective representation against the detention order.

4. The petitioner reserves his right to raise additional grounds at the time of arguments or during the course of the grounds.on 14/07/2021 the petitioner’s wife sent a representation to the detaining authority, Advisory board and the additional secretary to the government requesting to revoke the detention order.

5. I further submit that in these circumstances without any other option I approach this Hon’ble court by filing the present writ petition invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India for effective and efficacious remedy.
6. The petitioner has got the prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in favor of the petitioner and if the detention order is not set aside, the petitioner will be put to great difficulty and hardships.

7. As I am languishing in the prison, the original of the detention order vide no: 181/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 05/07/2021 which was served on me, got misplaced while I was taking various remedial measures through my wife to set myself free. Hence the same is not available with me to be produced before this Hon’ble court the copy of the said detention order is produced and the production of the original of the above said detention order needs to be dispensed with. Unless the production of the original of the above said detention order is not dispensed with, I will be put to much hardships and irreparable losses.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to dispinse with the production of the the original of the detention order vide no: 181/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 05/07/2021 and thus render justice.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pursuant to the order in 181/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 05/07/2021 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same consequently produce the body or person of detenueMadan kumaraged about 29 years S/o.Manickamnow confined in Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith and pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed and signed his name in my presence on this the 19th day of July 2021.
Before me

MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF WRIT PETITION
(Under Article 226 of Constitution of India)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Side Jurisdiction)
H.C.P.No. of 2021

Madan Kumar [M/ 29 Years],
s/o Manickam,
No.31/58, Srirangan Street,
Thadagapatti,
Salem-636006. …Petitioner / Detenue

Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government (Home)
Prohibition and Exercise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery,
Chennai 600 007.

3. The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Cell,
Central Crime Branch,
Vepery, Chennai- 7

4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai 600 066. …Respondents

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITION

The address for service of all notices and process on the petitioner is that of his counsel M/sS. CONSCIOUS ILANGO, Shelton D. Durairaj, and M.P. VenkatakrishnanAdvocates having office at, 3rd Floor, Sri Sudarsanam Building, No. 4/7, Errabalu Chetty Street, Chennai-600001.

The address for service of all notice and process on the respondents is the same as stated above.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pursuant to the order in 181/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 05/07/2021 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same consequently produce the body or person of the detenue Madan kumar aged about 29 years S/o. Manickam now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith and pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 19th day of July, 2021

Counsel for Petitioner.
 
IN THE HIGH COUER OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Side Jurisdiction)

H.C.P.No. of 2021

Madan Kumar [M/ 29 Years],
s/o Manickam,
No.31/58, Srirangan Street,
Thadagapatti,
Salem-636006. …Petitioner / Detenue

Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government (Home)
Prohibition and Exercise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 009.
And three others. …Respondents

INDEX TO TYPED SET

S. No. Dates Particulars
Page.No

1.
05 .07.2021
Order of detention passed by the 2nd Respondent

2. 05. 07. 2021
Grounds of detention issued by the 2nd respondent

3. 14. 07. 2021 Representation made by the petitioner to the respondents with postal receipts.

Certified that the above said documents are true copies of their respective Originals.

Dated at Chennai on this the 19th day of July, 2021.

Counsel for Petitioner

MEMORANDUM OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
(Under Article 226 of Constitution of India)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Side Jurisdiction)
M.P. No. of 2021
in
H.C.P.No. of 2021

Madan Kumar [M/ 29 Years],
s/o Manickam,
No.31/58, Srirangan Street,
Thadagapatti,
Salem-636006. …Petitioner / Petitioner

Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government (Home)
Prohibition and Exercise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery,Chennai 600 007.

3. The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Cell,
Central Crime Branch,
Vepery, Chennai- 7

4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai- 600 066. …Respondents / Respondents

PETITION TO DISPENSE

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to dispinse with the production of the original of the detention order vide no: 181/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 05/07/2021 and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 19th day of July, 2021.
Counsel for Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COUER OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Side Jurisdiction)

H.C.P.No. of 2021

Madan Kumar [M/ 29 Years],
s/o Manickam,
No.31/58, Srirangan Street,
Thadagapatti,
Salem-636006. …Petitioner/ Detenue

Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government (Home)
Prohibition and Exercise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 009.
And three others.. …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF MADAN KUMAR

M/s S. CONSCIOUS ILANGO
V. Kasinatha bharathi
M.P. Venkatakrishnan
A. Arikrishnan

Counsel For Petitioner

9566084233

vkadvocateassociates@gmail.com

 
MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF WRIT PETITION
(Under Article 226 of Constitution of India)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Side Jurisdiction)
H.C.P.No. of 2021
Madan Kumar [M/ 29 Years],
s/o Manickam,
No.31/58, Srirangan Street,
Thadagapatti,
Salem-636006. …Petitioner/ Detenue

Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government (Home)
Prohibition and Exercise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 009.
And three others.. …Respondents

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

M/s S. CONSCIOUS ILANGO
V. Kasinatha bharathi
M.P. Venkatakrishnan
A. Arikrishnan

Counsel For Petitioner

9566084233

vkadvocateassociates@gmail.com
 
MEMORANDUM OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
(Under Article 226 of Constitution of India)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Side Jurisdiction)
M.P. No. of 2021
in
H.C.P.No. of 2021

Madan Kumar [M/ 29 Years],
s/o Manickam,
No.31/58, Srirangan Street,
Thadagapatti,
Salem-636006. …Petitioner / Petitioner
Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government (Home)
Prohibition and Exercise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 009.
And three others.. …Respondents / Respondents

PETITION TO DISPENSE

M/s S. CONSCIOUS ILANGO
V. Kasinatha bharathi
M.P. Venkatakrishnan
A. Arikrishnan

Counsel For Petitioner

9566084233

sconsciousilango@gmail.com
 
IN THE HIGH COUER OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Side Jurisdiction)

H.C.P.No. of 2021

Madan Kumar [M/ 29 Years],
s/o Manickam,
No.31/58, Srirangan Street,
Thadagapatti,
Salem-636006. …Petitioner/ Detenue

Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government (Home)
Prohibition and Exercise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 009.
And three others.. …Respondents

INDEX TO TYPED SET

M/s S. CONSCIOUS ILANGO
V. Kasinatha bharathi
M.P. Venkatakrishnan
A. Arikrishnan

Counsel For Petitioner