Madras High Court
Sundaramoorthy vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 22 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1552/2023
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.1552/2023
Sundaramoorthy .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.District Collector & District Magistrate
Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
4.The Inspector of Police
Sembanarkovil Police Station
[i/c] Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1552/2023
5.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. .. 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 in
connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated
20.02.2023 in Order No.COC.No.4/2023, TPDA No.7744, against the
detenu Srinivasan, male aged 29 years son of Sundaramoorthy who is
confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli as remand prisoner in
Cr.No.33/2022 under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same
and direct the respondent to produce the detenu before this Court and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anbarasan
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, father of the detenu, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
20.02.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as "Sexual 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)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 that the detenu is likely to be
released on bail in the ground case by referring to an order passed in the
similar case in Cr.MP.No.360/2021 by the learned Sessions Judge,
Special Court under POCSO Act, Nagapattinam on 17.05.2021. Learned
counsel submitted that the Detaining Authority has referred to the above
order passed in the similar case in the Grounds of Detention, in particular,
paragraph No.4, to hold that the accused therein was released on bail .
However, the said bail order in the similar case is not furnished in the
Booklet. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is based on material
which has not been furnished to the detenu. Even before this Court also,
the order in Cr.MP.No.360/2021 is not furnished. Therefore, the
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is irrational and suffers
from non application of mind and on this ground, the Detention Order is
liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(4)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
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.''
(5) 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(6)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
20.02.2023 in COC.No.4/2023 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 Additional Chief Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.District Collector & District Magistrate
Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
4.The Inspector of Police
Sembanarkovil Police Station
[i/c] Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.
5.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
6.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
