Madras High Court
Aravind vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By on 22 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1502/2023
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.1502/2023
Aravind .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
The Greater Chennai City
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police [L&O]
G5 Secretariat Police Station
Chennai. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1502/2023
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.231/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated
14.06.2023 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 Akash son of Gnanamani, aged about 21 years the
detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vasudevan
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, brother of the detenu herein, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent
dated 14.06.2023 slapped on his brother, 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.10485/2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai. However, in the Booklet, 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.
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 14.06.2023 in No.231/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.
[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 and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
The Greater Chennai City
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police [L&O]
G5 Secretariat Police Station
Chennai.
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
