Madras High Court
Samundi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.2334 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.2334 of 2023
Samundi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City,
Salem District.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Salem – 636 007.
4.State rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Ammapet Police Station,
Salem District. ... Respondents
(Crime No.141 of 2023)
Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
H.C.P.No.2334 of 2023
calling for the entire records leading to the detention of petitioner's son,
the Detenue Thiru. Mani @ Manikandan, aged 28, son of Samundi, 9/99,
Mariamman Koil Street, Adikaraipatty, Udayapatty, Salem, presently
detained in Central Prison, Salem, under Act 14/1982, branded as
'Goonda' vide the detention order dated 30.5.2023 in
C.M.P.No.46/Goonda/Salem City/2023, on the file of the 2nd respondent
herein, directing to produce the person or body of the Detenue Thiru.
Mani @ Manikandan, aged 28, son of Samundi, before this Court and
thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison Salem by set aside
the above order.
For Petitioner : Mr.B. Vasudevan
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 father of the detenu Mani @
Manikandan, S/o. Samundi, aged 28 years, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 30.05.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under
the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act
14 of 1982].
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the
Detaining Authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus
Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly
contended that the Detaining Authority was swayed by the fact that the
relative of the detenu is taking efforts to file a bail application and hence,
it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subjective
satisfaction that has been arrived at by the Detaining Authority at
Paragraph No.4 of the order is not supported by any materials.
Therefore, the same also suffers from non-application of mind.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate
the submissions, relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2005 (2) LW 946 [K.Thirupathi Vs. District Magistrate and District
Collector, Tiruchirappalli District & another].
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the
Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter.
6. The Detaining Authority has considered the fact that the relative
of the detenu is taking efforts to file a bail application before the
competent Court, as the bail was granted in a similar case in
C.M.P.No.3749/2011 on 22.12.2011. Therefore, the Detaining Authority
came to the conclusion that there is an imminent possibility of the detenu
coming out on bail.
7. The satisfaction that has been arrived at by the Detaining
Authority is merely on surmises and it is not based on any materials that
has been placed before the Detaining Authority. At this point of time, it
will be relevant to take note of the Full Bench judgment, which has been
referred to supra. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted
hereunder:
...... “24. The detaining authority is required to follow
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
strictly and scrupulously the forms and rules of law
prescribed in that behalf or by the statutory provision
under which the order of detention is being made after
arriving at a subjective satisfaction. In the event of any
deviation or violation of the statutory provisions or
infraction of constitutional guarantees, the Courts will
not hesitate to quash the orders of detention. Whatever
be the jurisdiction to detain and the slightest infraction
of the constitutional guarantee would lead to the detenu
being set at liberty.
25. It is by now well settled that in all detention
laws, the orders of detention and its continuance of
detention should be in conformity with Article 22 of the
Constitution of India and slightest infraction of the
Constitutional protection enshrined therein would be a
valid ground to set the detenu at liberty.
26. There must be cogent material before the
Authority passing the detention order for inferring that
the detenu was likely to be released on bail. This
inference must be drawn from material on record and
must not be the ipse dixit of the Authority passing the
detention order.
27. In the case of a person in custody a detention
order can validly be passed if the authority passing the
order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable
material placed before him--
(a) that there is a real possibility of his being released
on bail, and
(b) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from
so doing. If the authority passes an order after recording
its satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be
struck down on the ground that the proper course for the
authority was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted
notwithstanding such opposition to question it before a
higher Court.
28. It is neither possible nor advisable catalogue
the types of materials which can form the basis of a
detention order under the Act. That will depend on the
facts and situation of a case. That is why there is no
provision in the Act in that regard and the matter is left
to the discretion of the detaining authority. However, the
facts stated in the materials relied upon should be true
and should have a reasonable nexus with the purpose
for which the order is passed.”
8. It is clear from the above that the detenu is in custody and he has
not filed any bail petition and there are no materials to show that he is
taking steps to file a bail petition by himself or through his relatives or it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was merely on the presumption made by the Detaining Authority, the
same reflects non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining
Authority.
9. In view of the above, the detention order suffers from non-
application of mind and the same is liable to be interfered with by this
Court. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second
respondent, in C.M.P.No.46/Goonda/Salem City/2023, dated 30.05.2023,
is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detenu viz., Mani @ Manikandan, S/o. Samundi, aged 28 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
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem District.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Salem – 636 007.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Ammapet Police Station,
Salem District.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
03.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
