Madras High Court
Ponni vs The Secretary To Government on 2 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.2266 of 2023
Ponni ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Roshanai Police Station, Tindivanam,
Villupuram District.
4.The Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2266 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 relating to the Detenu's detention order passed by the second
respondent in his order dated 23.08.2023 in Rc.No.C2/55039/2023 and
approved by the first respondent and set aside the same and produce the
Detenu P.Jayakumar @ Settu S/o.Pachaiyappan aged 35 years now detained
in the Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Devaraj
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, wife of the detenu namely Jayakumar @ Settu,
S/o.Pachaiyappan, aged 35 years, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated
23.08.2023 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 bail order relied upon by the
Detaining Authority is not similar to the case on hand, by referring to the
fact that bail was granted to the accused therein mainly on the ground that
the co-accused was granted bail. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted
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.
4.On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that, in the similar case
relied upon by the Detaining Authority, i.e., C.M.P.No.9176 of 2022, dated
15.11.2022, the accused therein was granted bail mainly on the ground that
the co-accused had been granted bail. Hence, this Court is of the view that
the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
likely to be released on bail, by relying upon the aforesaid similar case,
suffers from 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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, in
Rc.No.C2/55039/2023, dated 23.08.2023, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jayakumar @ Settu,
S/o.Pachaiyappan, 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]
02.01.2024
pvs
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Roshanai Police Station, Tindivanam,
Villupuram District.
4.The Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
pvs
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
