Madras High Court
M.Kumaresan vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 22 August, 2023
HCP(MD)No.982 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
H.C.P.(MD)No.982 of 2023
M.Kumaresan .. Petitioner / father of the detenu
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector Cum District Magistrate,
Theni, Theni District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Madurai
Madurai District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the
records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.982 of 2023
pertaining to the order made in Detention Order No.18/2023 dated
08.02.2023 in detaining the detenu under 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu aCt 14 of
1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the 4 th respondent to
produce the detenu Vignesh @ Vicky, S/o.Kumaresan male aged about 24
years, who is detained at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Anandan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)
The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Vignesh @ Vicky
S/o.Kumaresan, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in No.18/2023, dated 08.02.2023 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.982 of 2023
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 many grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner focussed his argument on the ground that the
detaining authority was swayed by the fact that a bail petition may be filed
before the competent Court by the detenu or his relatives in future.
4. The learned counel for the petitioner further submitted that the
subjective satisfaction that has been arrived at by the detaining authority at
Paragraph No.5 of the order is not supported by any materials. Therefore,
the same also suffers from non application of mind.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate the
submissions, relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2005
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.982 of 2023
(2) LW 946 [K.Thirupathi v. District Magistrate and District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District & another].
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor while objecting this
petition submitted that on completion of investigation, charge sheet has
been filed in PRC .No.11 of 2023 and the same is pending before the
Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.
7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondents.
8. Even though several grounds have been raised in the petition filed
before this Court, this Court is inclined to consider the main ground that has
been focussed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. It is further stated therein that the detenu had not filed any bail
application till date, but, however, they have received a secret information
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.982 of 2023
that his relatives will file bail application before the competent Court very
soon. Though the source of secret information may not be disclosed to the
petitioner, the information as such ought to have been disclosed to the
petitioner. The non supply of such a vital information may not be justifiable
and hence, the detaining authority having arrived at the subjective
satisfaction become questionable. At this point of time, it will be relevant to
take note of the Full Bench judgment, which has been referred supra.
10. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“24. The detaining authority is required to follow
strictly and scrupulously the forms and rules of law
prescribed in that behalf or by the statutory provision under
which the order of detention is being made after arriving at a
subjective satisfaction. In the event of any deviation or
violation of the statutory provisions or infraction of
constitutional guarantees, the Courts will not hesitate to
quash the orders of detention. Whatever be the jurisdiction to
detain and the slightest infraction of the constitutional
guarantee would lead to the detenu being set at liberty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.982 of 2023
25. It is by now well settled that in all detention laws,
the orders of detention and its continuance of detention
should be in conformity with Article 22 of the Constitution
of India and slightest infraction of the Constitutional
protection enshrined therein would be a valid ground to set
the detenu at liberty.
26. There must be cogent material before the Authority
passing the detention order for inferring that the detenu was
likely to be released on bail. This inference must be drawn
from material on record and must not be the ipse dixit of the
Authority passing the detention order.
27. In the case of a person in custody a detention order
can validly be passed if the authority passing the order is
aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; if he has
reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed
before him--
(a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on
bail, and
(b) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so
doing. If the authority passes an order after recording its
satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be struck
down on the ground that the proper course for the authority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.982 of 2023
was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted notwithstanding
such opposition to question it before a higher Court.
28. It is neither possible nor advisable catalogue the
types of materials which can form the basis of a detention
order under the Act. That will depend on the facts and
situation of a case. That is why there is no provision in the
Act in that regard and the matter is left to the discretion of
the detaining authority. However, the facts stated in the
materials relied upon should be true and should have a
reasonable nexus with the purpose for which the order is
passed.”
11. It is clear from the above that where the detenu is in custody and
he has not filed any bail petition and there are no materials to show that he
is taking steps to file a bail petition by himself or through his relatives or it
was based merely on the presumption made by the detaining authority, the
same reflects non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.982 of 2023
12. In view of the above, the detention order suffers from non
application of mind and the same is liable to be interfered with by this
Court.
13. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in No.18/2023, dated 08.02.2023 passed by the second
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vignesh @ Vicky, S/o.Kumaresan,
aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention
is required in connection with any other case.
(M.S.R.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.)
22.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.982 of 2023
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Joint Secretary
Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Chennai.
3.The District Collector Cum District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector Cum District Magistrate,
Theni, Theni District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.982 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH,J.
and
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
RR
H.C.P.(MD)No.982 of 2023
22.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
