Madras High Court
Prabavathi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 November, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2785 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.2785 of 2024
Prabavathi ... Petitioner/Mother of the
Detenu
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City,
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section),
Avadi,
Chennai - 600 054.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal,
Chennai.
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2785 of 2024
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-10, Thirumulaivoyal 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
detention order vide No.55/BCDFGISSV/2024 dated 28.05.2024, passed by
the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein
to produce the petitioner's son namely Abinesh, S/o. Amulraj, aged 25 years,
(who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal),
before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated
28.05.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are
taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of
mind, as the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated.
Hence, the learned counsel raised a bona fide doubt as to when the
documents were obtained and as to the date on which the Special Report
was sent by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority. The
learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the Special Report of the
Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detention Order, it may not
have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority based on these undated documents, would vitiate the Detention
Order.
4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that, in
Para No.4, the Detaining Authority has stated that the Sponsoring Authority
has stated that he came to understand that the relatives of the detenu are
taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail applications before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appropriate Court and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the
detenu is likely to be released on bail. When the Special Report of the
Sponsoring Authority is not dated, the veracity of the Report becomes
doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend
on when the Sponsoring Authority has sent his Report. In the absence of the
report, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect. Hence, this
Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
Detaining Authority based on such undated materials, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 second
respondent in proceedings No.55/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 28.05.2024, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz., Abinesh, aged 25 years, S/o. Amulraj, confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is
required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
21.11.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City,
Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section),
Avadi,
Chennai - 600 054.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal,
Chennai.
5. The Inspector of Police,
T-10, Thirumulaivoyal Police Station,
Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
veda
21.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
