Madras High Court
Bhavani vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1674 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1674 of 2024
Bhavani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Additional
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai City,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
V-3 JJ Nagar Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1674 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order on No.314/BCDFGISSSV/2024 at 06/04/2024 against the
petitioner's Husband Lokeshwaran @ Dori Lokesh, S/o.Sundar Male aged
22 years the detenue herein now confined in central prison puzhal Chennai
and produce the detenue before this Hon'ble Court and to set aside the
detention order and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.I.Ramanathan
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 namely
Lokeshwaran @ Dori Lokesh, aged about 22 years, S/o.Sundar, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the
second respondent dated 06.04.2024 slapped on her husband, branding
him as "GOONDA" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 have been raised in the Habeas Corpus
Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly
focus his arguments on the ground that the Detaining Authority has relied
upon the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.29540 of 2023 dated 24.11.2023 and
came to the conclusion that in a similar case, bail has been granted and
that there is a likelihood of the detenu also to be released on bail. The
learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the offences in the
order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention
and the offences involved in the present case are not similar and therefore,
there is a non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.
4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that in the
order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.29540
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2023 dated 24.11.2023, the accused therein was enlarged on bail for the
offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii)
IPC. However, in the ground case, the detenu was accused of the offences
under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 384, 392, 397 & 506(ii) of IPC. 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,
as the offences mentioned in the similar case and the offences against the
detenu are different. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be sustained.”
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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
on 06.04.2024 in No.314/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Lokeshwaran @ Dori
Lokesh, aged about 22 years, S/o.Sundar, is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other
case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
02.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Tsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Additional
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai City,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
V-3 JJ Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Tsg
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
