Madras High Court
Vijayalakshmi vs The Secretary To The Government on 4 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.2189 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.2189 of 2023
Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Vellore District, Vellore-9.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District, Vellore-9.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore-2.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Gudiyatham Town Police Station,
Vellore District.
... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2189 of 2023
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the
records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second
respondent, dated 01.09.2023 in C3/D.O.No.88/2023 against the petitioner's
son, Niranjan, Male aged 25 years S/o.Nedunchezhiyan, who is confined at
Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to
produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
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, mother of the detenu Niranjan, S/o.Nedunchezhiyan, aged 25
years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the 2nd respondent dated 01.09.2023 slapped on her son, branding
him as "Goonda" 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
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 his mind while expressing his 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
Crl.M.P.No.1191 of 2020, dated 03.07.2020, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the 2 nd
respondent in C3/D.O.No.88/2023, dated 01.09.2023, is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Niranjan,
S/o.Nedunchezhiyan, aged 25 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]
04.01.2024
Anu
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Vellore District, Vellore-9.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District, Vellore-9.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore-2.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Gudiyatham Town Police Station,
Vellore District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu
04.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
