Madras High Court
D.Mahalakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.2072 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.2072 of 2023
D.Mahalakshmi ...Petitioner/Wife of the Detenu
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Chengalpet District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpet District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal.
5.The Inspector of Police,
PEW Madurantakam,
Chengalpet District. ...Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2072 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
entire records, relating to the petitioner's husband detention under
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 21.09.2023 on the
file of 2nd respondent herein which was made in CPT. No. 57/2023 and
quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents herein to
produce the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, wherein the
petitioner's husband was detained in Central Prison, Puzhal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by
Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)
The petitioner, wife of the detenu herein, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
21.09.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the
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 confines his submission to one ground which
according to him would vitiate the detention order. The learned counsel
submitted that the Detaining Authority in order to arrive at the subjective
satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, has relied upon an
order passed in Crl.M.P.No.579 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in the Grounds of Detention.
However, the said order was not furnished to the detenu, instead, another
order in Crl.M.P.No.1224 of 2023 which is not relevant has been furnished
to the detenu and this would therefore vitiate the detention order.
4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention and the Booklet
furnished by the detenu, this Court finds that there is force in the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Detaining Authority has
referred to an order passed in Crl.M.P.No.579 of 2021, to infer that the
detenu is likely to be released on bail. However, the said order has not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
furnished. The non furnishing of the relevant document relied upon by the
Detaining Authority would affect the petitioner's right to make effective
representation. In the absence of the said order, the Detaining Authority's
satisfaction that the detenu was on the same footing as that of the accused in
Cr.M.P.No.579 of 2021, and therefore likely to be relased on bail is his mere
ipse dixit and hence, the detention order is vitiated.
5. The issue is directly covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to
Government and Another reported in 2011 [5] SCC 244. The relevant
observations are as follows:-
''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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. That apart, the Detaining Authority has furnished an extraneous
material in the Booklet which is also likely to confuse the detenu and affect
his right to make effective representation. In view of the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra and in view of the
aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to
be quashed.
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
21.09.2023 in CP No.57/2023 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus
Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith
unless he is required in connection with any other case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
08.01.2024
ars
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Chengalpet District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpet District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal.
5.The Inspector of Police,
PEW Madurantakam, Chengalpet District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
08.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(1/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
