Madras High Court
Ashok vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 December, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
H.C.P.No.1810 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.12.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1810 of 2023
Ashok
S/o Jayaraman .. Petitioner
v.
1. State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by the Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section)
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai District
4. The Inspector of Police
S-7, Madipakkam Police Station
Chennai District .. Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.1810 of 2023
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records
relating to the detention order vide Memo BCDFGISSSV No.313/2023
dated 13.07.2023 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and
direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Arun @
Maadu Arun, S/o Ashok, aged 23 years, (who is presently under going
detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai) before this Honble Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
For Respondents :: Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C.Aravind, Advocate
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.)
The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, namely, Arun @
Maadu Arun, aged 23 years, S/o Ashok, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
13.07.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as 'Drug Offender' under the
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law
Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video
Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing 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 appearing for the petitioner confined his argument to the point that
the detaining authority has relied upon the bail order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.1414 of 2021 dated 04.06.2021 by the Principal Special Court
under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai in respect of the accused in similar case,
which is not similar to the case on hand, as the bail was granted to the
accused in similar case considering that no bad antecedent was reported
against the accused therein. However, in the present case, it is admitted that
there is one adverse case against the detenu. Therefore, the detention order is
liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority suffers from non-application of mind.
4. This Court perused page-144 of the booklet and is convinced with
the statement of the learned counsel for petitioner that the bail was granted
to the accused in similar case on the ground that no bad antecedent was
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reported against the accused therein. However, in the present case, it is
admitted that the detenu is alleged to be involved in one adverse case. This
Court has held in several cases that the detention order is vitiated if there is
no application of mind as to the real ground on which the bail was granted
to the accused in similar case. It is also relevant to point out that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through
Secretary to Government and another, (2011) 5 SCC 244, has held that 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. It is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as follows:-
“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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha's case, this
Court finds that the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
5. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
13.07.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.313/2023 is hereby set aside and the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Arun @ Maadu Arun,
S/o Ashok, aged 23 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he
is required in connection with any other case.
Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (S.M.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 11.12.2023
ss
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section)
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai District
4. The Inspector of Police
S-7, Madipakkam Police Station
Chennai District
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ss
11.12.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
