Mathan v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.02.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Mathan

...Petitioner/ Detenu

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore-18.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore City.

5. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Perur, Coimbatore District.

...Respondents.

Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.04.2023 in Cr.M.P. No.15/S.O./2023/E1 against the detenu Mathan,aged about 27 years, S/o. Mahalingam, is now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce him before this Hon'ble court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.V. Perarasu For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind

O R D E R

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

The petitioner, Mathan, aged about 27 years, S/o. Mahalingam, who is the detenu, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28.04.2023 slapped on him, branding him as "Sexual Offender" as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by relying upon the bail order granted to the accused in a similar case, suffers from non-application of mind.

4. In paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case since in a similar case, bail was granted to the detenu therein and relied upon an order passed by the Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore, in Crl.M.P. No.1100/2022. On a perusal of the said order, this Court finds that the said order relates to release of the accused therein on bail u/s.167[2] of Cr.P.C., since the respondent therein did not file final report, and not on merits. Therefore, it is not a similar case and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority,

regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from nonapplication of mind, which vitiates the detention order.

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. In the instant case, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail by referring to a bail order granted to the accused in a similar case in Crl.M.P. No.1100/2022. However, the said bail was granted on the ground that accused is entitled to statutory bail and not on merits and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail suffers from nonapplication of mind. Hence, on the above grounds, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.

6. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the

2nd respondent dated 28.04.2023 in Cr.M.P. No.15/S.O./2023/E1, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mathan, aged 27 years, S/o. Mahalingam, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 28.02.2024 bga Index : Yes / No

To 1 The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore-18.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore City.

5. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Perur, Coimbatore District.

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

7. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

M.S.RAMESH , J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

bga 28.02.2024