Madras High Court
Rani vs The Secretary on 23 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1452/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 23.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1452/2023
Rani .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary, State of Tamilnadu
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai Police Commissioner
The Commissioner Office,
Vepery, Chennai-7.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.
4.The Inspector of Police
V6 Kolathur Police Station
Chennai. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1452/2023
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.220/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated
09.06.2023 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 son Vignesh @ Kuppa son of Munusamy, the detenu now
confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the
petitioner's son Vignesh @ Kuppa son of Munusamy, aged about 24 years
the detenu herein at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Thomas Solomon
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
09.06.2023 slapped on her son, 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 points have been raised by the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no application of mind on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 as the
order passed in the similar case in Crl.MP.No.19198/2021 by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, is not similar to the present case.
Learned counsel pointed out that the learned Judge while granting bail to
the accused in the similar case, the learned Judge had taken note of the
fact that the investigation in the similar case was almost completed and
the accused therein had got only one previous case. Whereas, it is not so
in the case of the detenu. Hence, it is stated that the detention order is
liable to be quashed on the ground of total non application of mind.
(4)This Court, upon examination of the records, is unable to discard the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From a perusal of the
Booklet, in particular, pages No.138 and 139, it is seen that the Detaining
Authority has relied upon the bail order in Crl.MP.No.19198/2021
granted to the accused therein, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that
the detenu herein is likely to be released on bail in the ground case.
However, it is to be pointed out that the learned Judge while granting bail
in Crl.MP.No.19198/2021 has particularly recorded the fact that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
investigation was almost completed and the accused therein has got only
one previous case. Whereas, the detenu herein has got two previous
cases. The Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration this vital
aspect, while arriving at the subjective satisfaction. Hence, the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
11. In our opinion, the detention order in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
09.06.2023 in No.220/BCDFGISSSVS/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.
[SSSRJ] [SMJ]
23.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary, State of Tamilnadu
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai Police Commissioner
The Commissioner Office,
Vepery, Chennai-7.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.
4.The Inspector of Police
V6 Kolathur 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
23.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
