Madras High Court
Viji vs The Secretary To Government on 21 December, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1856/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 21.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1856/2023
Viji .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.District Collector & District Magistrate
Ranipet, Ranipet District.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Ranipet, Ranipet District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.
5.The Inspector of Police
Arakonam Town Police Station
Arakonam, Ranipet District. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1856/2023
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 impugned order in B3/DO.No.36/2023 dated 17.08.2023 on the file of
the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the
respondent to produce the detenu namely Lakshmikanthan
S/o.Ramakrishna, aged about 33 years now confined at Central Prison,
Vellore, before this Court, set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh
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
17.08.2023 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 ''As bails are being granted by Courts
in such cases, there is a most likely of he [Thiru.Lakshmikanth] coming
out on bail by above pending bail application in the Court. If he is
enlarged on bail, he would indulge in further activities which will be
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order......''. This statement of
the Detaining Authority is without any material, is mere ipse dixit not
supported by any material 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, with regard to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming
out on bail 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
(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
17.08.2023 in B3/DO.No.36/2023 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.]
21.12.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.District Collector & District Magistrate
Ranipet, Ranipet District.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Ranipet, Ranipet District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.
5.The Inspector of Police
Arakonam Town Police Station
Arakonam, Ranipet District.
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
21.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
