Madras High Court
Malar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 June, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1064 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1064 of 2024
Malar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section),
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police, (L&O),
K-7, ICF Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1064 of 2024
detention order in No.571/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 09.11.2023 passed
by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside
the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son namely
Anand, S/o.Srinivasan, aged about 30 years, now confined in Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the detenu at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Velmurugan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely
Anand, aged about 30 years, S/o.Srinivasan, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 09.11.2023 slapped on her son, branding her as "Drug Offender"
under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual 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, as well as 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
detenue 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 by recording
the fact that no previous cases were cited against the accused therein.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the bail order
relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.1414 of 2021, is not
similar to the case on hand since the accused therein was granted bail after
recording the fact that no previous case was reported against the accused
therein. However, it is admitted that there are 3 adverse cases as against
the detenue herein. Considering the nature of the bail order in the similar
case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the case on hand, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that
the detenue is also likely to be released on bail, 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 paragraph Nos.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 second respondent
on 09.11.2023 in No.571/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue namely Anand, aged
about 30 years, S/o.Srinivasan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith,
unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
05.06.2024
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 Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section),
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police, (L&O),
K-7, ICF Police Station,
Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni
05.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
