Madras High Court
Sasikala vs The Secretary To Government on 22 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1419/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 22.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1419/2023
Sasikala .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority
Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Inspector of Police
Tiruppur Central Police Station
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District. .. Respondents
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
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1419/2023
to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent against the detenu dated
19.06.2023 in detention order in C.No.28/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2023 and set
aside the same and produce the detenu Saravanan, male, aged about 38
years now detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Radha Pandian
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.]
(1)The petitioner, wife of the detenu herein, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent
dated 19.06.2023 slapped on her husband, 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.
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 orders of bail in similar case in
Crl.MP.No.1159/2021 passed by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. However, in the Booklet, in particular, page
No.177, 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 and further that the accused
therein had got no previous cases. Whereas, the detenu herein has got one
adverse case. 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.
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
whether the case of the co-accused was on the same
footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 reasons, the detention order passed by the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent dated 19.06.2023 in C.No.28/G/IS/Tiruppur City/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.]
22.11.2023
AP
Internet: Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority
Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Inspector of Police
Tiruppur Central Police Station
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
