Madras High Court
R.Sakthivel vs The Additional Chief Secretary To The ... on 24 November, 2023
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
HCP.No.1890/2023
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.1890/2023
R.Sakthivel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
[Home] Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, O/o.The Commissioner
of Police, [Goondas Section]
Avadi, Chennai 600 056.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police
[Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell – II]
Chennai Central Investigation Tam-II
Egmore, Chennai 600008. ... Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1890/2023
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records
connected with the order of the 2nd respondent herein in Memo
NO.192/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 30.05.2023 passed against the
petitioner's brother of the detenu namely Thiru Saravanan, son of
Bugendran, aged about 45 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai and set aside the same consequently directing the respondents
herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and
set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Saritha
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, brother of the detenu has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
30.05.2023 slapped on his brother, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(3)Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that
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 detenu herein in the adverse case, suffers from non-
application of mind.
(4) In paragraph No.4 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 the adverse case, bail was granted to the the
detenu herein and relied upon the order passed by this Court in
Crl.OP.No.201/2022. However, a perusal of the said order in the Booklet
in page No.289, this Court finds that the said order relates to release of
the detenu herein by recording the fact that the said case relates to civil
dispute and that a suit is pending between the parties. However, the
ground case relates to criminal offence. 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 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
the bail granted to him in the adverse case by this Court in
Crl.OP.No.201/2022. However, the said bail was granted on the ground
that the case is of civil nature and that a civil suit is pending between the
parties. But the ground case of the detenu is not civil in nature and that it
relates to criminal offence. Hence, the adverse case cannot be compared
to. 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.
Hence, the detention order in question cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sustained.''
(6)In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgment and in view 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
30.05.2023 in Memo No.192/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] [SMJ]
24.11.2023
mkn
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
[Home] Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, O/o.The Commissioner
of Police, [Goondas Section]
Avadi, Chennai 600 056.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police
[Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell – II]
Chennai Central Investigation Tam-II
Egmore, Chennai 600008.
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
