Rani @ Ezhilabath Rani v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

1. Rani @ Ezhilabath Rani Petitioner Vs

1. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep.By The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner Of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Inspector Of Police, P-2, Otteri Police Station, Chennai.

4.The Superintendent Of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 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 in Memo No.1168/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 27.11.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and

direct the respondent to produce the petitioners son Thiru.Kevin Pinto, S/o. Raja @ Richer John, aged about 26 yrs the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, chennai before this court and set the petitioner's son Thiru.Kevin Pinto, S/o. Raja @ Richer John, aged about 26 yrs the detenue herein at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, Kevin Pinto, S/o. Raja @ Richer John, aged 26 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 27.11.2024 issued against her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

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 taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the statements under 180(3) of B.N.S.S, said to have been made by the detenu's relatives 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 detenue's relatives. 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 relatives, enclosed in the Booklet, particularly in Page No.73 in Volume-I, 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 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 statements 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, are not dated, the veracity of such statements becomes doubtful.

The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the statements were 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 relevant to extract paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "10.

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 27.11.2024 in 1168/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Kevin Pinto S/o. Raja @ Richer John, aged 26 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required

in connection with any other case.

(M.S.RAMESH J.) (V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.) 03-06-2025 nl Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009 2.The Commissioner Of Police Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai 600 007 3.The Inspector Of Police P-2, Otteri Police Station, Chennai 4.The Superintendent Of Prison Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066

M.S.RAMESH J.

AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.

nl

03-06-2025