Madras High Court
Rani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 December, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1862/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 05.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1862/2023
Rani .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise
Department, Fort St George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Tiruchirappalli Central Prison
Tiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector of Police
Mannargudi Town Police Station
Thiruvarur District.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1862/2023
6.Union of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs
rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents
**R6 suo motu impleaded vide order dated
26.09.2023 in HCP.No.1862/2023
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the body of the
detenu by name Thiru Yadava Prasath @ Prasath, male, aged 32/2023, son
of Rajendran, No.28, Edatheru, Mannargudi & Post, Mannargudi Town
Police Station Limit, Mannargudi Taluk, Tiruvarur District, presently
confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at
liberty forthwith after calling for the records pertaining to the detention order
dated 12.07.2023 made in COC.No.47/2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan
Senior counsel for Mr.A.Rajaperumal
For RR 1 to 5 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,APP
assisted by Mr.Aravind.C
For R6 : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekanandan
Deputy Solicitor General of India
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
(1)The petitioner, mother of the detenu has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
12.07.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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 submitted that the Detaining Authority had arrived at the
subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the
ground case by relying upon the bail granted to an accused in the similar
case in Crime No.817/2020 for the alleged offences u/s.294[b], 341, 324,
307 and 506[ii] of IPC. However, the offences in the ground case in
Crime No.403/2023 are not similar as that of the similar case since the
offences are not similar.
(4)On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining
Authority had relied upon the order of bail passed in similar case in Crime
No.817/2020 in Crl.OP.No.8926/2020 on 02.07.2020 by this Court, to
arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released
on bail in the ground case. However, the offences in the similar case and
in the ground case are not same or similar, so as to arrive at the subjective
satisfaction. In the similar case, the accused therein was charged for the
offences u/s.294[b], 341, 324, 307 & 506[ii] of IPC. Whereas, in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ground case, he was charged for the offences u/s.294[b], 506[ii], 307 of
IPC. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely
to be released on bail in the ground case, suffers from non-application of
mind. Hence, on the above ground, the Detention Order is liable to be
quashed.
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
(6) In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view
of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the detention order
is liable to be quashed.
(7)Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention
order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 12.07.2023 in COC.No.47/2023
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.]
05.12.2023
AP
Internet: Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise
Department, Fort St George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Tiruchirappalli Central Prison
Tiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector of Police
Mannargudi Town Police Station
Thiruvarur District.
6.Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs
New Delhi 110 001.
7.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
05.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
