Madras High Court
K.Lakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 October, 2022
HCP(MD)No.735 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
H.C.P.(MD)No.735 of 2022
K.Lakshmi ... Petitioner / Mother of the Detenu
/Vs./
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with
the detention order passed in H.S.(M)Confdl.No.80 of 2022, dated
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.735 of 2022
25.04.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same
and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu
namely, the petitioner's son i.e., Kodangi @ Koda @ Muthu, aged about 20
years, S/o.Katturaja, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai,
before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
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., Kodangi @ Koda @
Muthu S/o. Katturaja, aged about 20 years. The detenu has been detained
by the second respondent by his order in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.80 of 2022,
dated 25.04.2022 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.735 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 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 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.735 of 2022
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 noting the fact that there was no bail petition pending as on
the date of passing the detention order, placed reliance upon the order
passed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23893 of 2016 by this Court and came to the
conclusion that it is a similar case and there is a likelihood of the detenu
being let out on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the order that was relied upon by the detaining authority does not pertain to
a similar case and the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.
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
Crl.O.P(MD)No.23893 of 2016. In that case, the final report was already
filed and the accused therein had undergone a considerable period of
incarceration. The said order cannot be treated as a similar case, since in the
present case no final report was filed and the detention order was passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.735 of 2022
within a period of 28 days from the time, when the detenu was arrested in
the ground case and the investigation was pending. Hence, the detention
order suffers from non-application of mind and therefore, the same is 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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.735 of 2022
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.80 of 2022, dated 25.04.2022, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Kodangi @ Koda @
Muthu, S/o.Katturaja, 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.)
28.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ta
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.735 of 2022
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
ta
H.C.P.(MD)No.735 of 2022
28.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
