Madras High Court
Senbagapriya vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its on 24 November, 2023
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
HCP.No.1247/2023
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.1247/2023
Senbagapriya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its
Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector & The District Magistrate
Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
5.The Inspector of Police
Madhuranthagam Police Station
Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1247/2023
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating
to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in CPT.No.38/2023 dated
26.06.2023 against the petitioner brother Padmapriyan @ Kili, male, aged
about 33 years, son of Kuppusamy under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 who is
branded as Goonda detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066
before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anbazhagan
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, sister of the detenu has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
26.06.2023 slapped on her 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 accused in a similar case, suffers from non-application of
mind.
(4) 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 Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in Cr.MP.No.4378/2018 dated
26.10.2018. However, a perusal of the said order in the Booklet in page
No.133, this Court finds that the said order relates to release of the
accused on bail u/s.167[2] of Cr.P.C., since the accused therein had been
in prison for more than 90 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 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 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:-
''10. In our opinion, if details are given by the
respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
sustained.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(6)In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgment and in view aforesaid reason, 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
26.06.2023 in CPT.No.38/2023, 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 Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector & The District Magistrate
Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
5.The Inspector of Police
Madhuranthagam Police Station
Chengalpattu District.
6.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
