Madras High Court
Nivetha vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By on 30 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1411/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 30.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1411/2023
Nivetha .. Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by
The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate of
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Inspector of Police
Tiruvannamalai Prohibition Enforcement wing
Tiruvannamalai District.
5.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1411/2023
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
relating to petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982
vide detention order dated 06.07.2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent
herein made in proceedings DO.No.72/2023-C2 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the
petitioner's husband namely Murugan, aged 33 years, son of Vijayan, before
this Court and set him at liberty, now petitioner's husband detained at
Central Prison, Vellore.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
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, wife of the detenu, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
06.07.2023 slapped on her husband branding him as "Bootlegger" 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioner submitted that the bail order in the similar case relied on by
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 Public Prosecutor had not objected for grant of bail to
the accused therein.
(4)On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining
Authority had relied upon the order of bail passed in a similar case in
Crl.MP.No.2206/2015 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Tiruvannamalai, 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.87, it is seen that bail was granted to the
accused in the similar case in Crl.MP.No.2206/2015 as there was no
objection on the side of the prosecution to release the accused therein on
bail. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 reason, this Court is of the view that the detention order is
liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(7)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
06.07.2023 in DO.No.72/2023-C2 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.]
30.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate of
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Inspector of Police
Tiruvannamalai Prohibition Enforcement wing
Tiruvannamalai District.
5.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore.
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
30.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
