Madras High Court
Prasanna Venkatesh vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 23 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1757/2023
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.1757/2023
Prasanna Venkatesh .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government of
Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Muthandikuppam Police Station
Cuddalore District. ..
Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1757/2023
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
C3/DO/24/2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent, set aside the detention
order dated 12.06.2023 and direct the 2nd respondent to produce the detenu
Prasanna Venkatesh son of Jagadessan, aged about 29 years presently
detained at the Central Prison, Cuddalore under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982 as a Goonda, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Syed Sughatulla
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
(1)The petitioner,detenu herein, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
12.06.2023 slapped on him, 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 raised the following two grounds. Firstly, there is no
proximate link between the ground case and the date of passing of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
detention order and secondly, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by
relying upon the bail order granted to the accused in a similar case, suffers
from non-application of mind.
(4)With regard to the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is seen that the ground case referred by the Detaining
Authority is stale as the same is registered in the year 2020. However, the
Detention Order was passed only on 12.06.2023.
(5)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushantha Kumar Banik Vs.
State of Tripura and Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4715, has dealt
with similar situation and has held in paragraph No.14 as follows:-
''In view of the above subject of the preventive
detention, it becomes very imperative on the part of
the detaining authority as well as the executing
authorities to remain vigilant and keep their eyes
skinned but to turn a blind eye in passing the
detention order at the earliest from the date of the
proposal and executing the detention order because
any indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
authority or executing authority would defeat the very
purpose of the preventive action and turn the
detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the
entire proceedings.”
(6)The Hon'ble Supreme Court was persuaded to allow the Appeal filed
before it mainly on the ground that delay in passing the Order of
Detention from the date of the proposal would snap the ''live and
proximate link'' between prejudicial activities and the purpose of
detention. Therefore, failure on the part of the Detaining Authority in
explaining such delay as in the present case also is a valid ground for
quashing the Detention Order.
(7)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sama Aruna Vs. State of
Telangana and Another reported in 2018 [12] SCC 150 has considered
the aspect of staleness of the detention order and has held in paragraphs
No.26 and 27 as follows:-
26. The influence of the stale incidents in the
detention order is too pernicious to be ignored, and
the order must therefore go; both on account of being
vitiated due to malice in law and for taking into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
account matters which ought not to have been taken
into account.
27. There is another reason why the detention
order is unjustified. It was passed when the accused
was in jail in Crime No. 221 of 2016. His custody in
jail for the said offence was converted into custody
under the impugned detention order. The incident
involved in this offence is sometime in the year 2002-
2003. The detenu could not have been detained
preventively by taking this stale incident into account,
more so when he was in jail. In Ramesh Yadav v. DM,
Etah [Ramesh Yadav v. DM, Etah, (1985) 4 SCC 232 :
1985 SCC (Cri) 514] , this Court observed as follows :
(SCC p. 234, para 6):-
“6. On a reading of the grounds, particularly
the paragraph which we have extracted above,
it is clear that the order of detention was
passed as the detaining authority was
apprehensive that in case the detenu was
released on bail he would again carry on his
criminal activities in the area. If the
apprehension of the detaining authority was
true, the bail application had to be opposed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and in case bail was granted, challenge
against that order in the higher forum had to
be raised. Merely on the ground that an
accused in detention as an undertrial prisoner
was likely to get bail an order of detention
under the National Security Act should not
ordinarily be passed.”
(8)With regard to the second contention raised, in paragraph No.5 of the
Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has also stated that there is
a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case since in a
similar case, bail was granted to the accused therein and relied upon the
order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore, in
Cr.MP.No.364/2021 dated 02.06.2021. However, on a perusal of the said
order in the Booklet in page No.270, this Court finds that the said order
relates to release of the accused on statutory bail u/s.167[2] of Cr.P.C.,
since the accused therein had been in prison for more than 93 days and
not on merits. Therefore, it is not a similar case and the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, regarding the possibility of the
detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vitiates the detention order.
(9)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 dealt with a situation where the Detention Order is
passed without an application of mind. In case any of the reasons stated in
the order of detention is non-existent or a material information is wrongly
assumed, that will vitiate the Detention Order. In the instant case, the
Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the
detenu is likely to be released on bail in the ground case by referring to a
bail order granted to an accused in a similar case in Cr.MP.No.364/2021.
However, the said bail was granted on the ground that accused is entitled
to statutory bail and not on merits. This indicates non-application of mind
on the part of the Detaining Authority. 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
''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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hence, the detention order in question cannot be
sustained.''
(10)In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgments and in view aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view
that the detention order is liable to be quashed.
(11)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
12.06.2023 in C3/D.O/24/2023, 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.]
23.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government of
Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Muthandikuppam Police Station
Cuddalore District.
6.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
