Madras High Court
R.Gunasekaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2275 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2275 of 2024
R.Gunasekaran ... Petitioner/Father of the
Detenu
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City,
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai - 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T7 - Avadi Tank Factory Police Station,
Avadi, Tiruvallur. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2275 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records leading to the
detention of petitioner's son who is detained as GOONDA at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai by the 2nd respondent vide his order
No.90/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 28.06.2024 and quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the respondents one and two to produce the body of
the detenu Prakash/detenu, S/o. Gunasekaran, aged about 27 years from the
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Chandran
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
28.06.2024 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
appropriate Court and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
relevant to extract paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.90/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 28.06.2024, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Prakash, aged 27 years, S/o. Gunasekaran 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.] [V.S.G., J.]
24.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
To The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City,
Chennai.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai - 600 066.
5. The Inspector of Police,
T7 - Avadi Tank Factory Police Station,
Avadi, Tiruvallur.
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
24.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
