Madras High Court
Sampath vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.1877 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1877 of 2023
Sampath ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Salem District,
Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem,
Salem.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Salem District,
Salem
5.The Inspector of Police,
Kondalampatti All Women Police Station,
Salem. ... Respondents
Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
H.C.P.No.1877 of 2023
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus,
calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed in
C.M.P.No.01/SEXUAL OFFENDER/C2/2023 dated 01.03.2023 by the
second respondent and set aside the same and directing the respondents to
produce the detenue by name Thiru.Sampath son of Manickam aged
about 35 years before this Court now confined in Central Prison, Salem,
and him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.E. Viswanathan
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 is the detenu Sampath, S/o. Manickam aged
35 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 01.03.2023 slapped on him,
branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and
Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 pointed out that the Detaining Authority has not
applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction that the
detenu is also likely to be released on bail. It is his submission that the
case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, is not similar to the present
case, as the bail was granted in favour of the accused therein only by
referring to Covid-19 pandemic.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the bail order
passed in the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, in
C.M.P.No.221/2020, dated 02.06.2020, is not similar to the case on hand,
since the accused therein was released on bail mainly by citing
Covid-19. Therefore, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of
the Detaining Authority is irrational and the detention order is liable to
quashed on the ground of non-application of mind.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rekha Vs. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. In the instant
case, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction
that the detenu is likely to be released on bail by referring to a bail order
granted to the accused in a similar case, wherein, the said bail was
granted mainly by citing Covid-19 Pandemic. Therefore, the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to be
released on bail suffers from non-application of mind. 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
same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent, in C.M.P.No.01/SEXUAL OFFENDER/C2/2023, dated
01.03.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed. The petitioner/detenu viz., Sampath, S/o.Manickam, aged 35
years, 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]
03.01.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Salem District,
Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem,
Salem.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Salem District,
Salem
5.The Inspector of Police,
Kondalampatti All Women Police Station,
Salem.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni
03.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
