Madras High Court
Santhi Inbaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu ... on 19 October, 2022
HCP(MD)No.793 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.793 of 2022
Santhi Inbaraj ... Petitioner / Mother of Detenue
/Vs./
1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its
Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the order
passed by the second respondent dated 18.04.2022 in P.D.No.22/2022 and
quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of
the petitioner's son, Mr.Davidraj @ David S/o.Inbaraj, aged about 26,
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.793 of 2022
Kalivilai, Azhaganparai Post, Mandaikadu Village, Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanyakumari District now confined in Central Prison Palayamkottai before
this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip 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., Davidraj @ David,
S/o.Inbaraj aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in P.D.No.22/2022 dated 18.04.2022 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.793 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 bail petition filed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.793 of 2022
petitioner is pending, relied upon the order passed in C.M.P.No.3468 of
2019 and came to the conclusion that it is a similar case and hence, there
was a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed this
Habeas Corpus Petition.
8. We have carefully gone through the order passed in C.M.P.No.3468
of 2019. It is seen that the Court had granted bail on the ground that the co-
accused have already been released on bail and that the accused had
suffered incarceration for more than 25 days and the facts of that case
pertaining to seizing of vehicle had been taken into consideration by the
concerned Court. By no stretch, the order passed in C.M.P.No.3468 of 2019
can be considered to be a similar case and there is clear non-application of
mind on the part of the detaining authority. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.793 of 2022
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 P.D.No.22/2022, dated 18.04.2022, passed by the second
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Davidraj @ David, S/o.Inbaraj,
aged about 26 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.793 of 2022
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
ta
To:
1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its
Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
H.C.P.(MD)No.793 of 2022
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
