Madras High Court
V.Kannagi vs The Secretary To Government on 10 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2024 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2024 of 2024
V.Kannagi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
B-2, Esplanade Police Station,
Chennai,
Crime No.145 of 2024. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2024 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 relating to the order in
detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in
No.681/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 19.06.2024 and quash the same as illegal
and produce the detenue namely Vinoth @ Malaiyappa, S/o. Vellikannu,
aged 21 years, as GOONDA, now he is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal -
II, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Lokesh
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 19.06.2024 is sought to be assailed in the present habeas corpus
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor 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
taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of
mind, as the statement under 161 Cr.P.C., enclosed at page no.127 of the
typeset of papers served on the detenue 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent on 19.06.2024 in No.68/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
viz., Vinoth @ Malaiyappa S/o. Vellikannu 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.]
10.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
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,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Inspector of Police,
B-2, Esplanade Police Station,
Chennai,
Crime No.145 of 2024.
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
10.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
