Madras High Court
Murugan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 September, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHABANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
H.C.P.(MD)No.364 of 2022
Murugan : Petitioner/Detenu
Vs.
1.The 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,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire
records, connected with the detention order passed in M.H.S.Confdl.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
19/2022 dated 02.02.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash
the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the
detenu namely Murugan, aged about 29 years, S/o.Ponniah, 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.Thiruvadikumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The petitioner is the detenu viz., Murugan, aged about 29 years,
S/o.Ponniah. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his
order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.19/2022 dated 02.02.2022 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
3.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.
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. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf
of the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the detaining authority has relied upon the order passed in
Cr.M.P.No.3614 of 2021 and has concluded that there is imminent
possibility of the detenu being granted bail. On carefully going through the
order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3614 of 2021, we find that the bail was granted
on the ground that the investigation was completed and final report was
filed. That apart, the accused in that case had also suffered pretrial
incarceration for nearly 84 days. Hence, we conclude that the similar case
that has been relied upon by the detaining authority is not similar and it
completely varies with the facts of the case on hand.
8. Even though several grounds have been raised in the petition filed
before this Court, it will be enough, if this Court focuses on the main
ground that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
detaining authority, at Paragraph No.5 of the detention order, mentioned that
the petitioner has not filed any bail application. However, it has been stated
that in cases of similar nature, the accused persons have been granted bail
and therefore, there is imminent possibility of the detenu filing a similar bail
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition and coming out on bail, after a lapse of time.
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.
11.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in in M.H.S.Confdl.No.19/2022 dated 02.02.2022, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Murugan, aged about
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29 years, S/o.Ponniah, 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.]
07.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Ns
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
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
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
Ns
Order made in
H.C.P.(MD)No.364 of 2022
Dated: 07.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
