Madras High Court
Suresh vs The Secretary To Government on 29 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1870/2023
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.1870/2023
Suresh .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Fort St George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority
Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Coimbatore
Coimbatore District.
4.The Inspector of Police
Thirumuruganpoondi Police Station
Tiruppur District. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1870/2023
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records
relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982
vide detention order dated 03.07.2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent
herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.31/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2023, quash
the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to
produce the petitioner's son namely Kishore Kumar @ Prasanth son of
Suresh aged 26 years before this Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty
from detention now the petitioner's son detained at Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
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
03.07.2023 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)Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the bail order granted to the co-accused of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the detenu herein in the ground case relied on by the Detaining Authority
to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be
released on bail, was obtained where the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor had not objected for grant of bail to the co-accused therein and
however, bail was denied to the detenu herein in the ground case as the
Public Prosecutor opposed the petition only on the ground that the detenu
is likely to be detained under the Goondas Act.
(4)On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, in particular, paragraph No.5,
it is seen that the Detaining Authority had relied upon the order of bail
passed in Crl.MP.No.1228/2023 by this Court on 22.06.2023 in respect
of the co-accused of the detenu who was arrayed as A2 in the ground
case, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be
released on bail in the said case. However, a perusal of the Booklet, in
particular, page No.186, it is seen that bail was granted by th learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, to the 2nd accused/co-accused of the
detenu in the ground case in Crl.MP.No.1228/2023 as there was no
objection on the side of the prosecution with regard to the 2nd accused.
However, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respect of the detenu and the only objection that was raised by him in
respect of the detenu herein is that the detenu was likely to be detained
under the Goondas Act. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds
that the subjective satisfaction arrived at 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
03.07.2023 in Memo C.No.31/G/IS/Tiruppur 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 Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Fort St George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority
Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Coimbatore
Coimbatore District.
4.The Inspector of Police
Thirumuruganpoondi Police Station
Tiruppur 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
