Madras High Court
Velayudham @ Ajith @ Ajithkumar vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 28 October, 2022
HCP(MD)No.913 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.913 of 2022
Velayudham @ Ajith @ Ajithkumar .. Petitioner/ Detenu
Vs
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort. St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai.
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, calling for the entire records relating to the
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.913 of 2022
detention order passed by the 2nd Respondent in No.12/BCDFGISSSV/2022
dated 26.04.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce
the body or person of the detenu by name, Velayudham @ Ajith @
Ajithkumar, aged 23 years, S/o.Manikandan, now confined in Central
Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
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., Velayudham @ Ajith @ Ajithkumar,
aged 23 years, S/o.Manikandan. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in No.12/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 26.04.2022
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.913 of 2022
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.
5. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the
detenu was in remand in the 5th adverse case is concerned, the bail petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.913 of 2022
filed by the detenu was dismissed by an order dated 18.04.2022. However,
the detaining authority by relying upon the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.
1513/2022 dated 11.04.2022 came to a conclusion that there is a likelihood
of the detenu coming out on bail. 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.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that insofar
as the ground case is concerned, the bail petition filed by the detenu was
dismissed and the subsequent bail application was pending before the
Sessions Court. After taking note of the same, the detaining authority relied
upon the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1996/2019 dated 06.06.2019 and came
to a conclusion that there is a likelihood of the detenu being granted bail in
the ground case. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1996/2019 dated 06.06.2019 cannot be
considered to be similar to the ground case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.913 of 2022
7. 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.
8. We have carefully gone through the bail order relied upon by the
detaining authority passed in Cr.M.P.No.1513/2022 dated 11.04.2022. That
was a case where there was no previous case against the accused and the
injured had already been discharged from the hospital. However, in the
present case, there were four previous cases against the detenu and hence
the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1513/2022 dated 11.04.2022 cannot be
considered to be a similar case to that of the 5th adverse case in which the
accsued person was in remand. That apart, the previous bail application that
was filed by the detenu was dismissed through an order dated 18.04.2022
and after the bail was granted in the so called similar case on 11.04.2022.
9. Insofar as the ground case is concerned, the detaining authority
relied upon the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1996/19. We carefully went
through the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1996/19. It is seent that in that case,
there were two previous cases agaisnt the accused therein pertaining to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.913 of 2022
year 2015 and 2016. In the present case, the previous cases were also of the
year 2022 and hence the order in Cr.M.P.No.1996/19 cannot be considered
to be a similar case. 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.
10.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.
11.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.913 of 2022
12.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in No.12/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 26.04.2022 passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Velayudham @ Ajith @
Ajithkumar, aged 23 years, S/o.Manikandan, 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
PJL
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort. St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.913 of 2022
Madurai District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.913 of 2022
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
PJL
H.C.P.(MD)No.913 of 2022
28.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
