Madras High Court
Meena vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 24 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.2037 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.2037 of 2023
Meena .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
4.State rep. By Inspector of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station,
Salem City. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating
to the detention order passed by the second respondent in
proceedings namely C.M.P. No.60/Goonda/Salem City/2023 dated
26.06.2023 and to set aside the same and direct the fourth
respondent to produce the detenu the petitioner's son viz.,
Thiru.Kathirvel @ Kathir, aged 20 years, son of Ramesh, residing
at F-Block, Door No.371, Kaligounderkadu, New Housing Board,
Kitchipalayam, Salem – 15, who is presently undergoing detention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
HCP.No.2037 of 2023
in the Central Prison, Salem as Goonda under Section 2(f) of the
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders,
Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982] before this Court and thereby setting him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthu Ramanand
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.]
The petitioner, mother of the detenu Kathirvel @ Kathir, has
come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the second respondent dated 26.06.2023 slapped on her
son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,
Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video
Pirates Act, 1982 [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. Though several points have been raised by the petitioner,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar order
relied upon by the detaining authority to arrive at subjective
satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail suffers
from non-application of mind.
4. In paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention, the
detaining authority has 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, by relying upon an
order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in
C.M.P.No.346 of 2019, dated 02.02.2019. On a perusal of page
Nos.191 and 192 of the Booklet, this Court finds that the accused
therein was detained under Act 14 of 1982 for considerable time
and taking note of the said fact, bail was granted to the accused
therein. 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 vitiates the detention order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 dealt with a
situation where the Detention Order is passed without 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 by referring to a bail
order granted to an accused in a similar case in C.M.P.No.346 of
2019. However, bail was granted in the said case on the ground
that accused therein was detained under Act 14 of 1982 and he
was in incarceration for considerable time and therefore, the
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is
likely to be released on bail suffers from non-application of mind.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order
passed by the second respondent dated 26.06.2023 in C.M.P.
No.60/Goonda/Salem City/2023, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Kathirvel @
Kathir, S/o.Ramesh, aged about 20 years, 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.]
24.11.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mmi
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station,
Salem City.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
mmi
24.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
