Thilagavathy vs State Rep.By
2023 Latest Caselaw 17292 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 17292 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 December, 2023

Madras High Court

Thilagavathy vs State Rep.By on 21 December, 2023

Author: S.S.Sundar

Bench: S.S.Sundar

                                                                           HCP.No.1901/2023


                                  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.1901/2023

                     Thilagavathy                                     ..          Petitioner

                                                      Versus
                     State rep.by
                     1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
                       Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
                       Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu
                       Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

                     2.The Commissioner of Police
                       The Greater Chennai City, Vepery
                       Chennai 600 007.

                     3.The Superintendent of Police
                       Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.

                     4.The Inspector of Police
                       F3 Nungambakkam Police Station
                       Chennai.                                       ..       Respondents



                                                          1


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                HCP.No.1901/2023


                     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 detention order in Memo No.364/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated
                     17.08.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
                     1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the
                     petitioner's brother Arumugam S/o.Chandran aged about 37 years the detenu
                     now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set
                     him at liberty.

                                   For Petitioner  :        Mr.A.Vinoth Kumar
                                   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, sister of the detenu herein, has come forward with this

petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent

dated 17.08.2023 slapped on her brother, 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)Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for

the petitioner contended that the bail order in the similar case relied on by

the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the

detenu is likely to be released on bail, was obtained during COVID-19

situation and that placing reliance on such order shows the non-

application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.

(4)On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining

Authority had relied upon the order of bail in similar case in

CMP.No.1414/2021 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge,

Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act 1985, Chennai-104,

However, in the Booklet, in particular, page No.42, it is seen that the bail

order in the similar case was obtained during COVID-19 situation and

bail was granted to the accused therein with a specific reference to

COVID-19. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the

subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority to hold that

the detenu is likely to be released on bail, suffers from non-application of

mind.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(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

case, 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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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 aforesaid facts, the detention order passed by the 2nd

respondent dated 17.08.2023 in No.364/BCDFGISSSV/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.

                                                                                [SSSRJ]      [SM J]
                                                                                      21.12.2023
                     AP
                     Internet: Yes





https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis





                     To

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.