Madras High Court
Valli vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its on 23 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1511/2023
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.1511/2023
Valli .. Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City, O/o.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi, Chennai-600 054.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
4..The Inspector of Police [Law and Order]
F5 Sholavaram Police Station
Chennai. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1511/2023
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in
No.163/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 24.06.2023 on the file of the 2nd
respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to
produce the detenu namely Murali, son of Murugesan, male, Hindu, aged
about 29 years before this Court who is now detained in Central Prison,
Puzhal, [TPDA No.4524] and set him at liberty
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajinikanth
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, wife of the detenu herein, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent
dated 24.06.2023 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 in
Crl.MP.No.10485/2021 relied on by the Detaining Authority to arrive at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the subjective satisfaction that the 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, in particular, page No.270, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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)The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the order of
Detention again suffers from non application of mind as paragraph No.6
another bail order in Crl.MP.No.1759/2018 relied upon by the Detaining
Authority has been improperly translated.
(7)On a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, page No.266, it is seen that
bail order in Crl.MP.No.1759/2018 granted to the accused in a similar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
case has been furnished and in paragraph No.6, it is stated as
follows:-''......The murder case pending against the petitioner is of the
year 2012 and another case is of the year 2014...''. However, in the
translated copy of the said bail order in the vernacular version, it is stated
as follows:-'',td; kPJ Vw;fdnt bfhiy tHf;F kw;Wk;
bfhiy Kaw;rp tHf;F cs;sJ////// '' Hence, it is seen that there is
an improper translation of the similar case bail order in the vernacular
version.
(8)It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that serious prejudice is
caused to the detenu on account of improper translation in making
effective representation against the Detention Order and that the
Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
(9)In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in
(1999) 2 SCC 413. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with
similar situation where in the Grounds of Detention referred to an order
remanding the detenu therein to judicial custody was in English language.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Since the tamil version of the document was not supplied to the detenue
therein, a specific issue was raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether
failure to supply tamil version of the remand order passed in English, a
language not known to the detenu therein, would vitiate the detenu's
further detention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the
safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that
the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation
effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply
every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is
imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:
''9.However, this Court has maintained a
distinction between a document which has been relied
upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of
detention and a document which finds a mere
reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the
non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in
the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to
continued detention, the detenu need not show that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the
non-supply of such a document would amount to
denial of the right of being communicated the grounds
and of being afforded the opportunity of making an
effective representation against the order. But it would
not be so where the document merely finds a reference
in the order of detention or among the grounds
thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of non-
supply of document has to be supported by prejudice
caused to him in making an effective representation.
What applies to a document would equally apply to
furnishing a translated copy of the document in the
language known to and understood by the detenu,
should the document be in a different language.
.....
16. For the above reasons, in our view, the non-
supply of the Tamil version of the English document,
on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her
continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that
the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required
to be detained in any other case. The appeal is
accordingly allowed.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(10)In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in
view of the aforesaid facts, the detention order passed by the 2 nd
respondent dated 24.06.2023 in No.164/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.
[SSSRJ] [SM J]
23.11.2023
AP
Internet: Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City, O/o.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi, Chennai-600 054.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
4..The Inspector of Police [Law and Order]
F5 Sholavaram 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
