Madras High Court
Kumari vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 14 October, 2022
HCP(MD)No.1110 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
H.C.P.(MD)No.1110 of 2022
Kumari ... Petitioner / Mother of the Detenu
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirapalli City,
Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records pertaining to
the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent made is his
proceedings in C.No.47/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2022 dated 11.04.2022 in
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1110 of 2022
detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as
a “Goonda” and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenu namely Kalidoss, S/o.Nagarajan, Male, aged about 32 years, who is
detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, before this Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Kalidoss, aged about
32 years, S/o.Nagarajan. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in C.No.47/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2022 dated
11.04.2022 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under 2(f) of
the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this
Habeas Corpus Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1110 of 2022
2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We
have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3.Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus
Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his argument on the
ground, wherein, the detaining authority has taken into consideration the
fact that the accused, who are similarly placed, have been granted bail by
the competent Court.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining
authority, without the availability of materials, cannot ipso facto satisfy
himself regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail,
merely on the ground that the accused, who are similarly placed have been
granted bail.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu ((2011) 5 SCC
244) to substantiate his submission.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1110 of 2022
6.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf
of the respondents.
7. Apart from the main ground, that was urged by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the detaining authority, after noting the fact that no
bail application was filed at the time of passing the detention order, took
into consideration the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4529 of 2021, came to a
conclusion that bail is granted in similar case and therefore, there is a
likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned counsel submitted
that the order that was relied upon by the detaining authority was not a
similar case and hence, the detention order suffers from non application of
mind.
8.We have carefully gone through the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.4529 of 2021. In that case, bail was granted by taking into
consideration the previous case registered under Section 41(A) of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, against the accused therein.
Whereas in the present case, the previous case registered against the detenu
was for an offence of robbery. Hence, the bail order that was taken into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1110 of 2022
consideration by the detaining authority cannot be considered to be a similar
case and hence, the detention order suffers from non application of mind.
9.The issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is no longer res integra and it is covered by the judgment that has
been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been referred
supra.
10.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the above
judgment that the accused persons, who are similarly placed being granted
bail by the same Court or by a higher Court, cannot be a ground for the
detaining authority to come to such a subjective satisfaction without there
being any materials to substantiate the same. This by itself reflects non
application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Therefore, the
order of detention is liable to be interfered with.
11.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in C.No.47/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2022 dated 11.04.2022, passed
by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Kalidoss, aged about 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1110 of 2022
years, S/o.Nagarajan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his
detention is required in connection with any other case.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
14.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Ns/Ta
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirapalli City,
Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1110 of 2022
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
Ns/Ta
H.C.P.(MD)No.1110 of 2022
14.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
