Madras High Court
Sinthamani vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its on 21 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1401/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 21.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1401/2023
Sinthamani .. Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its
Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector of Police
Kilvelur Police Station
Kilvelur Taluk. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1401/2023
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 COC.No.29/2023 dated 22.06.2023 passed
by the 2nd respondent under Tamil Nadu act 14 of 1982 and set aside the
same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Surya son of
Thiru Neela Kandan, aged about 27 years the detenu now confined at
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set the petitioner's son
Surya son of Thiru.Neela Kandan, aged about 27 years the detenu herein at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
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, mother of the detenu has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
22.06.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as "Bootlegger" under the
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
(2)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
(3)Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the bail order in one of the similar cases
relied on by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction
that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the ground case, was
obtained since the learned Public Prosecutor had not objected for grant of
bail to the accused therein and that the accused therein had got no
previous case.
(4)On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining
Authority had relied upon the order of bail passed in one of the similar
cases in Cr.MP.No.1702/2023 dated 10.05.2023 passed by the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, to arrive at the
subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the
ground case. However, a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, page
No.75, it is seen that bail was granted by the learned Judge to the accused
therein in the similar case in Cr.MP.No.1702/2023 as there was no
objection on the side of the prosecution to release the accused therein.
Further, the learned Judge has also recorded the fact that the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therein has got no previous case. However, the detenu herein has got
three adverse cases. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that
the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority suffers
from non-application of mind. Hence, on the above ground, the Detention
Order is liable to be quashed.
(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
quashed. It is relevant to extract paragraphs No.10 and 11 of the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
imminent possibility of the accused coming out on bail
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
22.06.2023 in COC.No.29/2023 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.]
21.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to the Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector of Police
Kilvelur Police Station
Kilvelur Taluk.
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
21.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
