Madras High Court
Vanitha vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 27 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1816 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.1816 of 2023
Vanitha .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. .. 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 petitioner's son's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982
vide detention order dated 27.06.2023 on the file of the second
respondent herein made in proceedings No.
268/BCDFGISSSV/2023 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said
petitioner's son namely Jeeva, aged 22 years, son of Mari before
this Court and set him at liberty, now petitioner's son detained at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
HCP.No.1816 of 2023
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
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 Jeeva, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed
by the second respondent dated 27.06.2023 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.
3. Though several points have been raised by the petitioner,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that incomplete
bail order in similar case has been furnished to the detenu. It is
pointed out that though the translated version is complete, the
second page of the order dated 26.05.2021, which is in English, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.No.10485 of 2021 is not even found in the booklet.
Therefore, the detenu is deprived of making effective
representation.
4. This Court, upon examination of the Booklet, is unable to
discard the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The detenu is not furnished with the documents which are relied
upon by the detaining authority. Furnishing incomplete bail order
in the similar case relied upon by the detenu would deprive the
detenu of his valuable right to make an effective representation to
the authorities against the order of detention.
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 cases, 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.268/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jeeva, S/o.Mari, aged
about 22 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, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
mmi
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
