Saraswathy vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14823 Mad

Madras High Court

Saraswathy vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 24 November, 2023

Author: S.S. Sundar

Bench: S.S. Sundar

                                                                         H.C.P.No.1336 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.1336 of 2023

                     Saraswathy                                          ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

                     1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
                       Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
                       Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

                     2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
                       Avadi City,
                       Avadi.

                     3.The Superintendent of Prison,
                       Central Prison, Puzhal,
                       Chennai.

                     4.The Inspector of Police,
                       Central Crime Branch, Avadi,
                       Avadi.                                             ... Respondents




                     Page 1 of 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  H.C.P.No.1336 of 2023

                     Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
                     of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the
                     entire records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in
                     Memo.No.167/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 26.06.2023, and quash the same
                     and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's
                     husband namely Inbamathivathanan @ Inba, S/o.Yesuraja, aged about 36
                     years, detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Honble Court
                     and set him at liberty.


                                       For Petitioner        :     Mr.B.S.Manikandan

                                       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.)

The petitioner, wife of the detenu Inbamathivathanan @ Inba,

S/o.Yesuraja, aged about 36 years, has come forward with this petition

challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated

26.06.2023 slapped on his brother, branding him as "Goonda" under the

Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand

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.

3.Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned

counsel for the petitioner focussed mainly on the ground that the subjective

satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to

be released on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, since the bail

order relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the present

case, as the accused therein was granted bail after recording the fact that the

accused therein was just an attestor to the sale deed, whereas, the allegation

against the detenu in the present case is that he committed forgery and

impersonation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that, in the similar case relied

upon by the Detaining Authority, in Crl.O.P.No.3584 of 2021, dated

26.02.2021, the accused therein was granted bail after recording the fact

that the accused is only an attestor to the sale deed. Whereas, the allegation

against the detenu in the present case is that he committed forgery and

impersonation. In the said circumstances, this Court is convinced that the

subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority relying upon the

said order, 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 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. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 question only contains ipse dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility of the accused coming out on bail

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 in

Memo.No.167/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 26.06.2023, is hereby set aside

and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,

Inbamathivathanan @ Inba, S/o.Yesuraja, aged about 36 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 mkn

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, Avadi City, Avadi.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Avadi, Avadi.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

mkn

24.11.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis