Madras High Court
Amutha vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 27 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1305 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1305 of 2023
Amutha .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
C1 Flower Bazaar Police Station,
Chennai – 1. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in
No.264/BCDFGISSSV/2023 passed by the 2nd respondent on
27.06.2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same
as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce
petitioner's husband Saravanan, S/o. Chellappan, aged about 37
years before this Court, who is now detained in Central Prison,
Puzhal II, Chennai and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Elumalai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
HCP.No.1305 of 2023
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, wife of the detenu Saravanan, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed
by the second respondent dated 27.06.2023 slapped on her
husband, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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.
3. Though several points have been raised by the petitioner,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that special report
refers to a different person whereas the same has been relied upon
by the detaining authority for arriving at subjective satisfaction
that the detenu should be detained under Act 14 of 1982.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. It is seen from Page No.109 of the booklet furnished to the
detenu that the special report given by the sponsoring authority is
in respect of the accused by name Gopi, S/o.Manohar whereas the
name of the detenu in the present case is Saravanan,
S/o.Chellappan. There is total non-application of mind on the part
of the detaining authority as he has arrived at subjective
satisfaction based on the said special report. Therefore, the
detention order suffers from non-application of mind and the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is
irrational.
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 considered a case
where it is stated that in the grounds of detention that relatives of
detenu are taking action to take him on bail in the criminal case in
which the detenu was in remand and that in similar case, bail was
granted by Courts. Since no details had been given about the
alleged similar cases in which bail was allegedly granted by the
Court concerned, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the
absence of details, the statement which is mere ipse dixit, cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be relied upon and that itself is sufficient to 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 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the detention order is liable to be quashed.
7. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order
passed by the second respondent dated 27.06.2023 in
No.264/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Saravanan,
S/o.Chellappan, aged about 37 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.]
27.11.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mmi
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
C1 Flower Bazaar Police Station,
Chennai – 1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
mmi
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
