Madras High Court
Velu vs State Represented By Its on 1 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2237 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2237 of 2024
Velu ... Petitioner/Father
of the Detenue
Vs.
1. State represented by its
Home Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Chennai - 600 003.
3. The Inspector of Police,
H4, Korukuppattai Police Station,
Chennai - 13.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2237 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in relating to the order
of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 03.07.2024 in
No.753/BCDFGISSSV/2024 against the petitioner's son, the detenu,
Santhosh @ Biscuit Santhosh, male aged 23 years, son of Velu, who is
confined at Central Prison, Puzhal and set aside the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detetu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Senthilkumar
For Respondents : Mr. E. Raj Thilak
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
03.07.2024 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of
mind, as the statement under 161 Cr.P.C., said to have been made by the
detenu's relative before the Sponsoring Authority, is not dated. Hence, the
learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to when this
statement was obtained from the petitioner's relative. The learned counsel
further pointed out that, unless the statement relied upon by 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 this undated statement, would vitiate the Detention Order.
4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the
Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relative, enclosed in the Booklet,
stating that they are planning to file a bail application to bring out the detenu
on bail, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen
that, in Para No.4, the Detaining Authority has observed 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 application
before the appropriate Court and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. When the statement obtained
by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu stating that they
are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail is not
dated, the veracity of such statement becomes doubtful. The compelling
necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the statement was
obtained. In the absence of the date, the compelling necessity to detain,
becomes suspect. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on such undated material,
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. The ground case can be dealt with under the
law of the land.
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second
respondent in proceedings No.753/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 03.07.2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Santhosh @ Biscuit Santhosh S/o. Velu confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is
required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
01.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
veda
To
1. Home Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
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,
Greater Chennai,
Chennai - 600 003.
4. The Inspector of Police,
H4, Korukuppattai Police Station,
Chennai - 13.
5. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda
01.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
