Madras High Court
Sadhasivam vs The Secretary To Government on 29 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1679/2023
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.1679/2023
Sadhasivam .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise [XVI] Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
O/o.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent or Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police
E4 Abhiramapuram Police Station
Chennai District. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1679/2023
connected with the detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.184/2023 dated
23.05.2023 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same and direct
the respondents to produce the body and person of petitioner son one named
Surya @ Suryaprakash son of Sadhasivam, aged about 23 years now
confined at Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar
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, father of the detenu, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
23.05.2023 slapped on his 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)The learned counsel for the petitioner though canvassed several points
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
before this Court, this Court is able to find some force in his submission
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
released on bail in the ground case by referring to an order passed in the
similar case in Crl.MP.No.2054/2023 by the learned Sessions Judge,
Chennai. Learned counsel pointed out that the learned Judge while
granting bail to the accused in the similar case, had observed that the
accused therein has got only one previous case. Whereas, the detenu in
the present case has five previous cases. This aspect was not considered
by the Detaining Authority while arriving at the subjective satisfaction
that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the ground case and
hence, the learned counsel submitted that the subjective satisfaction of the
Detaining Authority suffers from non application of mind. Hence, on the
above ground, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.
(4)From a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, page No.133, it is seen that
the Detaining Authority has relied upon the said bail order in
Crl.MP.No.2054/2023 granted to the accused therein, to arrive at the
subjective satisfaction that the detenu herein is likely to be released on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bail in the ground case. However, it is to be pointed out that the learned
Judge while granting bail in Crl.MP.No.2054/2023 has particularly
observed that the accused therein had got only one previous case.
Whereas, the detenu herein has got five previous cases. 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.
11. In our opinion, the detention order in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
23.05.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.184/2023 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 Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise [XVI] Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
O/o.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent or Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police
E4 Abhiramapuram Police Station
Chennai District.
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
