Sathiya Priya vs State Represented By Its
2023 Latest Caselaw 17437 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 17437 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 December, 2023

Madras High Court

Sathiya Priya vs State Represented By Its on 22 December, 2023

Author: S.S. Sundar

Bench: S.S. Sundar

                                                                         H.C.P.No.1937 of 2023

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 22.12.2023

                                                       CORAM :

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
                                                        AND
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                               H.C.P.No.1937 of 2023

                     Sathiya Priya                                            ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

                     1.State Represented by its
                       Home Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
                       Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
                       Fort St. George,
                       Chennai – 600 009.

                     2.The Commissioner of Police,
                       Greater Chennai,
                       Chennai – 600 007.

                     3.The Inspector of Police,
                       R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station,
                       Chennai – 600 083.

                     4.The Superintendent of Prison,
                       Central Prison,
                       Puzhal.                                            ... Respondents


                     Page 1 of 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   H.C.P.No.1937 of 2023




                     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
                     records in relating to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent
                     dated 23.08.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.377/2023 against the petitioner's
                     brother, the Detenue Somasundaram @ Somu, Male, aged about 37 years,
                     S/o. Shanmugam, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and
                     set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before
                     this Court and set him at liberty.


                                       For Petitioner         :     M/s.R.K.Law Firm

                                       For Respondents        :     Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                                    Additional Public Prosecutor
                                                                    assisted by
                                                                    Mr.C.Aravind


                                                          ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)

The petitioner, sister of the detenu namely Somasundaram @ Somu,

aged about 37 years, S/o. Shanmugam, has come forward with this petition

challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated

23.08.2023 slapped on her brother, branding him as "Goonda" under the

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

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 pointed out that the bail order relied upon by the

Detaining Authority is not similar to the case on hand, by referring to the

fact that there was only one adverse case as against the accused therein in

the similar case, whereas, there are two adverse cases as against the detenu

herein. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Detaining

Authority has not applied his mind while expressing his subjective

satisfaction that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail.

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., the bail order in

Crl.M.P.No.19198 of 2021, dated 27.10.2021, it is stated that the accused

therein had one previous case. However, on a perusal of the Grounds of

Detention, this Court finds that the detenu has two adverse cases even

according to the Detaining Authority. Hence, this Court is of the view that

the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is

likely to be released on bail, by relying upon the aforesaid similar case,

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

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

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

23.08.2023, in BCDFGISSSV No.377/2023, is hereby set aside and the

Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Somasundaram @

Somu, aged about 37 years, S/o. Shanmugam, 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.) 22.12.2023

mkn

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

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No