Madras High Court
Periyakaruppan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 October, 2022
HCP(MD)No.495 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.495 of 2022
Periyakaruppan ...Petitioner/
father of the detenu
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Prohibition and Excise Department),
St.George Fort,
Chennai-600009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District,
at Sivagangai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppathur All Women Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(In Crime.No.15 of 2021). ...Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.495 of 2022
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the
detention order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide Cr.M.P.No.07/S.O/2022
dated 10.01.2022 and set aside the same and consequently direct the
Respondents to produce the body or person of detenue namely Ganapathy,
S/o.Periyakaruppan, aged about 28 years, before this Court and set him at
liberty, now he is detained at Central Prison, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Ms.A.Devaki
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Ganapathy,
S/o.Periyakaruppan, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by
the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.07/S.O/2022 dated
10.01.2022 holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under
Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.495 of 2022
challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. 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.
3.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.
4.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.495 of 2022
5. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the detaining authority was aware of the fact tha the bail
application that were filed by the detenue were dismissed and no bail
application was pending as on the date, when detention order was passed.
However, the detaining authority took into consideration the bail that was
granted to one Akbar Ali Ambalam in Cr.M.P.No.823/2021 dated
09.09.2021 by this Court. According to the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, the similar case that was taken into consideration by the
detaining authority to come to a conclusion that there is a likelihood of the
detenu being released on bail, is not a similar case. Hence, the detention
order suffers from non application of mind.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
7. We have carefully gone through the bail order relied upon by the
detaining authority passed in Crl.M.P.No.823 of 2021 dated 09.09.2021.
That was the case, where the Court took into consideration the fact that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.495 of 2022
164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim girl was already recorded and the
prosecution itself did not have any objection in granting bail to the accused
person therein. The facts of that case cannot be treated to be a similar case
since in the present case, the prosecution has vehemently opposed the bail
petition filed by the detenu and both the bail petitions filed by the detenu
were dismissed and there was no bail petition pending as on the date of
passing of the detention order. In view of the same, we find that the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority with regard to
the likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-
application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.
8.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.
9.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.495 of 2022
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.
10. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in Cr.M.P.No.07/S.O/2022 dated 10.01.2022 passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Ganapathy,
S/o.Periyakaruppan, aged about 28 years, 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
PJL
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Prohibition and Excise Department),
St.George Fort,
Chennai-600009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.495 of 2022
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District at Sivagangai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppathur All Women Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.495 of 2022
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
PJL
H.C.P.(MD)No.495 of 2022
14.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
