Madras High Court
Nisha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its on 1 December, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1485/2023
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.1485/2023
Nisha .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its
Secretary to Government
Department of Prohibition and Excise [Home]
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City Police, Greater Chennai
Commissioner Office, Vepery
Chennai 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police
J1 Saidapet Police Station
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison -II, Puzhal
Chennai. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1485/2023
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in
connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent made in
No.304/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 11.07.2023 on the file of the 2nd
respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenu
Manikandan @ Sothupaanai, son of Perumal, aged about 29 years, now
confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy
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 herein, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent
dated 11.07.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda"
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.
(3)Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for
the petitioner contended that the Detaining Authority has relied upon two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
similar cases to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is
likely to be released on bail in the adverse cases and in the ground case.
However, it is submitted that the bail order in one of the similar cases,
namely, Crl.MP.No.377/2023, was obtained by recording the fact that
the accused therein had got only one previous case and that he was in
judicial custody for more than 65 days. He also submitted that the bail
order in the 2nd similar case, namely, Crl.MP.No.2054/2023, was granted
on the ground that the co-accused to the accused therein was already
released on bail and that placing reliance on such orders shows the non-
application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.
(4)This Court, upon examination of the records, is unable to discard the
contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From a perusal of
the Booklet, in particular, page.No.211, it is seen that the Detaining
Authority has relied upon the bail order in Crl.MP.No.377/2023 granted
to the accused therein, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the
detenu herein is likely to be released on bail in the adverse cases and in
the ground case. However, it is to be pointed out that the learned Judge
while granting bail in Crl.MP.No.377/2023 has particularly recorded the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fact that the accused therein was in judicial remand for more than 65 days
and that the co-accused to the accused therein was released on bail. The
case of the detenu herein is not similar to that of the case in
Crl.MP.No.377/2023. Hence, it cannot be compared with.
(1)Further a perusal of page No.357, it is seen that the Detaining Authority
has also relied upon another bail order in Crl.MP.No.2054/2023 passed
by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, granting bail to the
accused therein, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu
herein is likely to be released on bail in the ground case. However, it is
to be pointed out that the learned Judge while granting bail in
Crl.MP.No.2054/2023 has particularly recorded the fact that the accused
therein has got only one previous case. Whereas, the detenu herein has
got two previous cases. The Detaining Authority has not taken into
consideration these vital aspects, while arriving at the subjective
satisfaction. Hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[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
case, 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
and there was no reliable material to this effect. Hence,
the detention order in question cannot be sustained.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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
11.07.2023 in No.304/BCDFGISSSVS/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.
[SSSRJ] [SM J]
01.12.2023
AP
Internet: Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Department of Prohibition and Excise [Home]
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City Police, Greater Chennai
Commissioner Office, Vepery
Chennai 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police
J1 Saidapet Police Station
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison -II, Puzhal
Chennai.
5.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
