Madras High Court
Thirumalai vs The Secretary To The Government on 21 December, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1991/2023
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.1991/2023
Thirumalai .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.District Collector & District Magistrate,
Vellore District, Vellore.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Vellore District, Vellore.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Vellore South [L&O] Police Station
Vellore District. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1991/2023
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
17.08.2023 in C3/DO.No.80/2023 petitioner/detenu Thirumalai, male, aged
36 years son of Seethapathy who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and
set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before
this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
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, brother of the detenu, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
15.08.2023 slapped on his brother, 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.
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 referred to any material or
reason to infer that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out
on bail in the ground case as he has not even relied upon any similar case
to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. He has merely stated ''However,
information from reliable sources reveals that he is intending to file a
bail petition through his relative. As bails are being granted by courts in
such cases, there is a mostly likely that he [Thiru Subhash] coming out
on bail by filing any bail application in appropriate Court......''. This
statement of the Detaining Authority without any material, which is mere
ipse dixit, 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 Authority,
with regard to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
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 2 nd respondent dated
15.08.2023 in C3/D.O.No.78/2023 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 the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.District Collector & District Magistrate,
Vellore District, Vellore.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Vellore District, Vellore.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Vellore South [L&O] Police Station
Vellore 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
