Ameena Beevi v. State Repby

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.164 of 2025 Ameena Beevi Petitioner(s)/ mother of the detenue Vs

1. State Rep by The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner Of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent Of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, 4.Inspector Of Police Alpha 4, Fake Passport Investigation Wing, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.

...Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the

detention order No. 285/2024, dated 28.12.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Nalla Mohammed, aged 60 years, confined in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Sheik Mohamed 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, Nalla Mohammed, aged 60 years, confined in Central Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.12.2024 issued against her son, 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 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail. It is his submission that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the present case, as the bail was granted to the accused therein on the ground that the co-accused had been granted bail.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-II, this Court finds that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.6057 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail on the ground that the co-accused had been granted bail. Therefore, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is irrational and the detention order is liable to quashed on the ground of 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 paragraphs 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 28.12.2024 in No.285/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Nalla Mohammed, aged 60 years, confined in Central Prison, Salem, is directed to

be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

[M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 06.06.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Anu To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner Of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent Of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, 4.Inspector Of Police Alpha 4, Fake Passport Investigation Wing, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.

5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J.

Anu H.C.P.No.164 of 2025 06.06.2025