Madras High Court
S.Sudha vs The Secretary To Government on 27 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1276 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.1276 of 2023
S.Sudha .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records
pertaining to the order of detention passed by the Second
respondent in his proceedings in BCDFGISSSV No.269/2023 dated
27.06.2023 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu
namely Sharma, S/o.Sasikumar aged 25 years now he is confined
in Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai before this Court and set
him at liberty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
HCP.No.1276 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Raja
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 Sharma, 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,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no
application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in
arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
released on bail in the ground case as the order dated 24.08.2021
passed in the similar case in Crl.M.P.Nos.13436 and 13772 of 2021
by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, is not similar to
the present case. Learned counsel pointed out that the learned
Judge while granting bail to the accused in the similar case, had
taken note of the fact that the accused therein has got no
previous case whereas, the detenu herein has got one previous
case. Hence, the said case cannot be compared to the case of the
detenu.
4. This Court, upon examination of the records, is unable to
discard the said contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. From a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, page
Nos.121 and 122, it is seen that the Detaining Authority has relied
upon the bail order in Crl.M.P.Nos.13436 and 13772 of 2021
granted to the accused therein, to arrive at the subjective
satisfaction that the detenu herein is likely to be released on bail
in the ground case. However, it is to be pointed out that the
learned Judge while granting bail in Crl.M.P.Nos.13436 and 13772
of 2021 has particularly recorded the fact that the accused therein
has got no previous case whereas, the detenu herein has got one
previous case. The Detaining Authority has not taken into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
consideration this vital aspect, while arriving at the subjective
satisfaction. Hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority 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 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
that the detention order is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order
passed by the second respondent dated 27.06.2023 in
No.269/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sharma,
S/o.Sasikumar, aged about 25 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,
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station,
Chennai.
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
