Anbarasu v. The Secretary To Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 18.04.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Anbarasu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority Huzur Road Coimbatore City Coimbatore - 18 3.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison - Coimbatore Coimbatore District 4.State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, E-1, Singanallur Police Station 1/9

Coimbatore District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the entire records relating to my son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 20.12.2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent made in proceedings Memo C.No.83/G/IS/2023, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce my son namely A.Akash @ Junta, S/o.Anbarasu, aged about 23 years before this Court and set my son at liberty from detention who is presently detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

For petitioner : Mr.Y.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Aravind.C

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.

The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu namely A.Akash @ Junta, aged about 23 years, S/o.Anbarasu, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent 2/9

dated 20.12.2023 slapped on his 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, as well as 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 in favour of the accused therein by recording the fact that there were eight previous cases as against A1 and nine previous cases as against A2.

3/9

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in C.M.P.No.1710 of 2022 is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein were granted bail after recording the fact that there were eight previous cases as against A1 and nine previous cases as against A2. However, it is admitted that there are three adverse cases as against the detenu herein. Considering the nature of the bail order in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the case on hand, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail, 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 4/9

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 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 5/9

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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent in C.No.83/G/IS/2023 dated 20.12.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., A.Akash @ Junta, aged about 23 years, S/o.Anbarasu, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 18.04.2024 Index: Yes/No 6/9

7/9

To 1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority Huzur Road Coimbatore City Coimbatore - 18 3.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison - Coimbatore Coimbatore District 4.The Inspector of Police, E-1, Singanallur Police Station Coimbatore District 5.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

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

8/9