Madras High Court
Gomathi vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 19 October, 2022
HCP(MD)No.1175 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
H.C.P.(MD)No.1175 of 2022
Gomathi ... Petitioner / Mother of Detenu
/Vs./
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Trichy. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order
of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings P.D.No.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1175 of 2022
34/2022 dated 19.04.2022 and quash the same as illegal and produce the
detenu namely Hari @ Moppa Hari @ Muralidharan S/o.Ragumaran, aged
about 20 years, now he is confined in Central Prison, Trichy before this
Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Hari alias Moppa Hari
alias Muralidharan, S/o.Raguraman aged about 20 years. The detenu has
been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order
P.D.No.34/2022 dated 19.04.2022 holding him to be a "Goonda", as
contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said
order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1175 of 2022
3.Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus
Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his argument on the
ground that 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 satisfied
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.
6. Apart from the other grounds, the main ground that was urged by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the detaining
authority, after taking note of the fact that the detenu has not filed any bail
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1175 of 2022
petition, took into consideration the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2304 of
2016 and came to the conclusion that the bail is granted in a similar case
and there is a likelihood of the detenu being granted bail.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed this
Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter.
8. We have carefully gone through the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.
2304 of 2016. In that case, the bail was granted on the ground that no injury
was sustained by the complainant therein and there was no objection for
grant of bail to the accused therein. It is therefore clear that the bail order
passed in Cr.M.P.No.2304 of 2016 cannot be taken to be a similar case and
hence, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind. The
impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1175 of 2022
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 P.D.No.34/2022, dated 19.04.2022, passed by the second
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Hari alias Moppa Hari alias
Muralidharan, S/o.Raguraman, aged about 20 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.)
19.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1175 of 2022
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
ta
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Trichy.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
H.C.P.(MD)No.1175 of 2022
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
