Madras High Court
Devamma vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 1 March, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.370 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.370 of 2024
Devamma ...Petitioner/mother of the Detenu
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police,
P-5, MKB Nagar Police Station,
Chennai. ...Respondents
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the
records relating to the detention order No.409/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.370 of 2024
20.09.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent under the respondent to produce
the petitioner's son Manjunathan, S/o. Marappa, aged about 23 years, the
detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Hon'ble Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr. C.M. Ramakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.A. Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner, mother of the detenu Manjunathan, aged about 23
years, S/o. Marappa, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 20.09.2023 slapped on
her son, branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of
the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that the similar case relied on by the
Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is
likely to be released on bail in the ground case, is not similar as the similar
case relied on by the Detaining Authority in paragraph No.4 is entirely
different from the order furnished in page No.88 of the Booklet. Hence,
the similar case cited to arrive at the subjective satisfaction, is not similar
and placing reliance on such order shows the non-application of mind on
the part of the Detaining Authority.
4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, in particular, paragraph
No.4, it is seen that the Detaining Authority had relied upon the order of
bail in similar case in Cr.M.P.No.19530/2023 passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. However, a perusal of the Booklet in
page No.88, would reveal that the order passed by the very same learned
Judge in Crl.MP.No.19403/2023, has been enclosed, which is not referred to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in the grounds of detention. It is not known as to why such extraneous
material was supplied in the Booklet. This is bound to confuse the detenu
and deny the right to make effective representation. It is in the said
circumstances, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by
the Detaining Authority to hold that the detenu is likely to be released on
bail in the ground 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 considered a case where it is stated that in the
grounds of detention that relatives of detenu are taking action to take him on
bail in the criminal case in which the detenu was in remand and that in
similar case, bail was granted by Courts. Since no details had been given
about the alleged similar cases in which bail was allegedly granted by the
Court concerned, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the absence of
details, the statement which is mere ipse dixit, cannot be relied upon and
that itself is sufficient to vitiate the detention order. When the subjective
satisfaction was irrational or there was non-application of mind, the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent
dated 20.09.2023 in No.409/BCDFGISSSV/2023 is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Manjunathan, aged
about 23 years, S/o. Marappa, 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]
01.03.2024
bga
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police,
P-5, MKB Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
6. The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
bga
01.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
