Madras High Court
S.Soundaravalli vs The Secretary To The Government on 11 December, 2023
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
H.C.P.No.1327 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.12.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1327 of 2023
S.Soundaravalli ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector
and District Magistrate,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kottakuppam Police Station,
Villupuram District.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.1327 of 2023
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore. ... Respondents
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the
entire records connected with the order of the 2nd respondent herein in
Rc.No.C2/44599/2023 dated 03.07.2023 passed against the petitioner's son
the detenu namely Vimalraj @ Jena, aged 28 years, S/o.Selvaraj, who is
confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, and set aside the same and
consequently directing the respondents herein to produce the body and
person of the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Murugavel
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Aravind C.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)
The petitioner, mother of the detenu Vimalraj @ Jena, aged 28 years,
S/o.Selvaraj, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 03.07.2023 slapped on her son,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video
Pirates Act, 1982 [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 mainly focused on the ground that the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to be released
on bail suffers from non-application of mind, as the order relied upon by the
Detaining Authority is not similar to the case on hand. Referring to the
similar order relied upon by the Detaining Authority, learned counsel for the
petitioner pointed out that bail was granted to the accused therein on the
ground that charge-sheet was already filed and hence, further custody is not
required.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that, in the similar case
relied upon by the Detaining Authority, i.e., Crl.O.P.Nos.11019 and 11020
of 2017, dated 15.06.2017, bail was granted to the accused therein on the
ground that charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no need for
further custody of the accused. However, it is not so in the case on hand.
Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority
on the basis of the said order that the detenu is likely to be released on bail,
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 dealt with a situation where the Detention Order is
passed without an application of mind. In case, any of the reasons stated in
the order of detention is non-existent or a material information is wrongly
assumed, that will 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 in
Rc.No.C2/44599/2023, dated 03.07.2023, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vimalraj @ Jena, aged
28 years, S/o.Selvaraj, 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.)
11.12.2023
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kottakuppam Police Station,
Villupuram District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
mkn
11.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
