Madras High Court
Devi vs The Secretary To The Government on 29 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1461/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 29.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1461/2023
Devi .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Salem City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Salem-7.
4.The Inspector of Police
Pallapatty Police Station
Salem. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1461/2023
connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated
22.06.2023 in CMP.No.57/Goonda/Salem City/2023 against the petitioner
son Ananth, male, aged 26 years son of Siddeswaran, who is confined at
Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to
produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
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
22.06.2023 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 grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the bail order in the similar case relied on by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the
detenu is likely to be released on bail in the ground case, was obtained
where the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had not objected for grant
of bail to the accused therein if the petitioners are directed to stay away
from the place of occurrence.
(4)On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, in particular, paragraph No.4,
it is seen that the Detaining Authority had relied upon the order of bail
passed in a similar case in Crl.OP.No.6676/2018 by this Court on
16.03.2018, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely
to be released on bail in the ground case. However, a perusal of the
Booklet, in particular, page No.183, it is seen that bail was granted by this
Court to the accused persons in the similar case in Crl.OP.No.6676/2018
as there was no objection on the side of the prosecution to release the
accused therein on bail subject to condition that the accused persons are
to stay away from the place of occurrence. Further, the learned Judge has
also recorded the fact that the accused therein had got no previous cases.
Whereas, the detenu herein has got one adverse case. It is in the said
circumstances, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction arrived at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the Detaining Authority suffers from non-application of mind. Hence,
on the above ground, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.
(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
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 and in view
of the 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
22.06.2023 in CMP.No.57/Goonda/Salem City/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.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.M, J.]
29.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Salem City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Salem-7.
4.The Inspector of Police
Pallapatty Police Station
Salem.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
29.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
