Madras High Court
Salma vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 18 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2133 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
H.C.P.No.2133 of 2024
Salma ... Petitioner/Wife of the
detenue
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai -66
4. The Inspector of Police, (L & O),
T-14, Mangadu Police Station.
Chennai. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2133 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in connection with the
order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 31.05.2024 in
BCDFGISSSV No. 61/2024 against the petitioner's husband namely Sri
Aravind Male aged 24 years, S/o. Sridhar, who is confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to
produce the detenue before the Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel
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
31.05.2024 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.
3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
detenu is likely to be released on bail. When the Special Report of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 BCDFGISSSV No.61/2024 dated 31.05.2024, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Sri Aravind, S/o. Sridhar, aged 24 years, 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.] [N.M., J.]
18.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and 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,
Avadi City.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai -66
5. The Inspector of Police, (L & O),
T-14, Mangadu Police Station.
Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
N.MALA., J.
veda
18.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
