Madras High Court
Ponni vs The Secretary To Government on 2 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023
Ponni ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Roshanai Police Station, Tindivanam,
Villupuram District.
4.The Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the
records relating to the Detenu's detention order passed by the second
respondent in his order dated 23.08.2023 in Rc.No.C2/55039/2023 and
approved by the first respondent and set aside the same and produce the
Detenu P.Jayakumar @ Settu S/o.Pachaiyappan aged 35 years now detained
in the Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Devaraj
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by
Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The petitioner, wife of the detenu namely Jayakumar @ Settu, S/o.Pachaiyappan, aged 35 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 23.08.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023 Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3.Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the case on hand, by referring to the fact that bail was granted to the accused therein mainly on the ground that the co-accused was granted bail. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind while expressing his subjective satisfaction that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail.
4.On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that, in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, i.e., C.M.P.No.9176 of 2022, dated 15.11.2022, the accused therein was granted bail mainly on the ground that the co-accused had been granted bail. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023 likely to be released on bail, by relying upon the aforesaid similar case, suffers from non-application of mind.
5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another reported in 2011 [5] SCC 244, has dealt with a situation where the Detention Order is passed without an application of mind. In case, any of the reasons stated in the order of detention is non-existent or a material information is wrongly assumed, that will vitiate the Detention Order. When the subjective satisfaction was irrational or there was non-application of mind, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of detention is liable to be quashed. It is relevant to extract paragraphs No.10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
“10.In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in similar cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application number, whether the bail order was passed in respect of the co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the co-accused was on the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023 same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it could be argued that there is likelihood of the accused being released on bail, because it is the normal practice of most courts that if a co-accused has been granted bail and his case is on the same footing as that of the petitioner, then the petitioner is ordinarily granted bail. However, the respondent authority should have given details about the alleged bail order in similar cases, which has not been done in the present case. A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored.
11.In our opinion, the detention order in question only contains ipse dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility of the accused coming out on bail and there was no reliable material to this effect.
Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained.''
6.In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.
Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023
7.Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, in Rc.No.C2/55039/2023, dated 23.08.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jayakumar @ Settu, S/o.Pachaiyappan, aged 35 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
02.01.2024
pvs
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Inspector of Police, Roshanai Police Station, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
4.The Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023 M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
pvs H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023 02.01.2024 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis