Madras High Court
Vennila vs The Secretary To The Government on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.977 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.977 of 2024
Vennila ... Petitioner/wife of the detenu
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Law and Order,
P-1 Pulianthope Police Station,
Pulianthope,
Chennai-600 012. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.977 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with
the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 02.11.2023
in No.529/BCDFGISSSV/2024 against the husband of the petitioner,
Rasathi @ Ilamparuthi, aged 40 years, son of Baskar, confined at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set aside the same and consequently,
direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramesh Babu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz., Rasathi @
Ilamparuthi, aged 40 years, son of Baskar, confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent dated 02.11.2023,
slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law
Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video
Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the
detenu are taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-
application of mind, as the statement under 161 Cr.P.C., said to have
been made by the detenu's relative before the Sponsoring Authority, is not
dated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide
doubt as to when this statement was obtained from the petitioner's
relative. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the
statement relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority is immediately before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on this undated statement,
would vitiate the Detention Order.
4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the
Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relative, enclosed in the Booklet,
stating that they are planning to file a bail application to bring out the
detenu on bail, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it
is seen that, in Para No.4, the Detaining Authority has observed that the
Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to understand that the
relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing
bail application before the appropriate Court and has arrived at the
subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail.
When the statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the
relatives of the detenu stating that they are planning to file bail
application to bring out the detenu on bail is not dated, the veracity of
such statement becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the
detenu would also depend on when the statement was obtained. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
absence of the date, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect.
Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the
Detaining Authority based on such undated material, 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 dealt with a situation where the Detention Order
is passed without an application of mind. In case, any of the reasons
stated in the order of detention is non-existent or a material information is
wrongly assumed, that will 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 paragraph Nos.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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent on 02.11.2023 in No.529/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz., Rasathi @ Ilamparuthi, aged 40 years, son of Baskar, confined at
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith,
unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
01.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
Note :- Registry shall forthwith return the booklet
containing the materials, on which, the
Detaining Authority has placed reliance,
to the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner
with due acknowledgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Law and Order,
P-1 Pulianthope Police Station,
Pulianthope,
Chennai-600 012.
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
01.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
