Madras High Court
Manjula vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1804/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1804/2023
Manjula .. Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
The Greater Chennai City
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police
S8 Adambakkam Police Station
Chennai. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1804/2023
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 detention order in memo NO.279/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated
29.06.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the
petitioner's son Arun @ Starrow son of Magesh aged about 24 years the
detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vinoth Kumar
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, mother of the detenu has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
29.06.2023 slapped on her son, 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.
(3)Though several points have been raised by the petitioner, the 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the ground case as the
order passed in the similar case in Crl.MP.No.377/2023 by the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, 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 recorded the fact that
the co-accused to the accused therein was granted bail and that the
accused therein was in the judicial custody for more than 65 days.
Whereas, it is not so in the case of the detenu. Hence, it is stated that the
detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of total non
application of mind.
(4)This Court, upon examination of the records, is unable to discard the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From a perusal of the
Booklet, in particular, pages No.329 and 330, it is seen that the Detaining
Authority has relied upon the bail order in Crl.MP.No.377/2023 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.MP.No.377/2023 has particularly recorded the fact that the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therein was in judicial remand for more than 65 days and that the co-
accused to the accused therein was released on bail. The case of the
detenu herein is not similar to that of the case in Crl.MP.No.377/2023.
Hence, it cannot be compared with. The Detaining Authority has not
taken into 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
(7)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
29.06.2023 in No.279/BCDFGISSSVS/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]
28.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
The Greater Chennai City
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police
S8 Adambakkam Police Station
Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
