Madras High Court
Vanitha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 December, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1662/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 01.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1662/2023
Vanitha .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep by Additional Chief Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Magistrate & The District Collector
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Usilampatti Police Station
Madurai District. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1662/2023
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating
to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in Cr.MP.No.16/Drug
Offender/2023 dated 27.04.2023 and to quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu Pandi, son of
Jayaraman, aged about 33 years, before this Court and set him at liberty now
detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramachandra Pradeep
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.Aravind.C
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
(1)The petitioner, wife of the detenu, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
27.04.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Drug Offender"
under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
(2)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(3)The learned counsel for the petitioner though canvassed several points
before this Court, this Court is able to find some force in his submission
that there is no application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority
in arriving at the subjective satisfaction. Learned counsel pointed out that
the Detaining Authority has not specifically mentioned about the
imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case
and he has not relied upon any similar case to arrive at the subjective
satisfaction. He has merely stated that ''On the materials placed before
me, I am satisfied that the said Pandi is a ''Drug Offender'' and there is a
compelling necessity to detain him in custody under the Tamil Nadu Act
14 of 1982 in order to prevent him from indulging in such further
activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order and health under Section 3[1] of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982......''. This statement of the Detaining Authority without any
material, is mere ipse dixit and suffers from non application of mind.
Hence, on the above ground, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.
(4)From a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, in particular, paragraph
No.5, it is seen that the subjective satisfaction arrived by the Detaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Authority, is not based on any materials and there is no reference to any
similar cases to arrive at such subjective satisfaction. Further, the
imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case
has not been specifically stated by the Detaining Authority. This
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is mere ipse dixit and
suffers from non-application of mind.
(5)The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another reported in 2011
[5] SCC 244, has considered a case where it is stated that in the grounds
of detention that relatives of detenu are taking action to take him on bail
in the criminal case in which the detenu was in remand and that in similar
cases, bail was granted by Courts. Since no details had been given about
the alleged similar cases in which bail was allegedly granted by the Court
concerned, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the absence of
details, the statement which is mere ipse dixit, cannot be relied upon and
that itself is sufficient to vitiate the detention order. When the subjective
satisfaction was irrational or there was non-application of mind, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of detention is liable to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
quashed. It is relevant to extract paragraphs No.10 and 11 of the said
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
''10. In our opinion, if details are given by the
respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in
similar cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail
application number, whether the bail order was passed
in respect of the co-accused in the same case, and
whether the case of the co-accused was on the same
footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it
could be argued that there is likelihood of the accused
being released on bail, because it is the normal
practice of most courts that if a co-accused has been
granted bail and his case is on the same footing as that
of the petitioner, then the petitioner is ordinarily
granted bail. However, the respondent authority should
have given details about the alleged bail order in
similar cases, which has not been done in the present
case. A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of
detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to
be ignored.
11. In our opinion, the detention order in
question only contains ipse dixit regarding the alleged
imminent possibility of the accused coming out on bail
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and there was no reliable material to this effect. Hence,
the detention order in question cannot be sustained.''
(6)In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view
of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is
liable to be quashed.
(7)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
27.04.2023 in Cr.MP.No.16/Drug Offender/2023 is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.M, J.]
01.12.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Magistrate & The District Collector
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Usilampatti Police Station
Madurai District.
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
01.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
