Madras High Court
Thirunavukkarasu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 February, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1575 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.02.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1575 of 2023
Thirunavukkarasu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai City,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
W-22, Mylapore All Women Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
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
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1575 of 2023
detention order in Memo No.273/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 27.06.2023
passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set
aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son the
detenu Vignesh Kumar @ Vicky, male, aged 24 years,
S/o.Thirunavukkarasu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Ilavarasan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu Vignesh Kumar
@ Vicky, aged 24 years, S/o.Thirunavukkarasu, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 27.06.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as "Sexual Offender"
under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
petitioner 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. The learned counsel further pointed out
that, unless the statement relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority is
immediately before 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the
Sponsoring Authority from the petitioner, enclosed in the Booklet, stating
that he is planning to file 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 relative of the detenu stating that he is
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 27.06.2023 in No.273/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vignesh Kumar @
Vicky, aged 24 years, S/o.Thirunavukkarasu, 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]
01.02.2024
Index: Yes/No
Sni
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai City,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
W-22, Mylapore All Women 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.
Sni
01.02.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
