Madras High Court
Anand @ Anand Babu vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 28 October, 2022
HCP(MD)No.1048 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.1048 of 2022
Anand @ Anand Babu ... Petitioner /Detenu
/Vs./
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District. ...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 detentin order of the second respondent in Detention Order NO.34/2022,
dated 22.04.2022 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to
produce the body or person of the detenu by name Anand @ Anand Babu
son of Shankar, aged about 22 years, now confining as “Goonda” at
Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1048 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prakash
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The petitioner is the detenu viz., Anand @ Anand Babu, S/o.Shankar
aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in Detention Order No.34/2022, dated 22.04.2022
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.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus
Petition, the main that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1048 of 2022
is that the detaining authority in spite of being aware of the fact that the bail
petition filed by the detenu was dismissed, took into consideration the order
passed in Cr.M.P.No.971 of 2020 and came to the conclusion that it is a
similar case and there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order relied upon by the
detaining authority is not the similar case.
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.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed this
Habeas Corpus Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1048 of 2022
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submitted that the investigation was completed and final report was filed
and it was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasanthur, in
P.R.C.No.2 of 2022. It was further submitted that the case stands posted for
hearing on 01.11.2022.
8. We have carefully gone through the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.971
of 2020 and we find that, that was the case, where the accused person had
already suffered incarceration for nearly 73 days and substantial
investigation was also over. Taking into account the said fact, the bail was
granted. The order passed in Cr.M.P.No.971 of 2020 cannot be considered
to be a similar case to the ground case that is pending against the detaining
authority. Hence, 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.1048 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 Detention Order No.34/2022, dated 22.04.2022, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Anand @ Anand Babu,
S/o.Shankar, aged about 22 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1048 of 2022
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
ta
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
H.C.P.(MD)No.1048 of 2022
28.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
