Madras High CourtHCP/367/2025allowed

Saraswathi Murugesan v. The Additional Chief Secretary,

2025-03-28Honourable Mr Justice M.S. Ramesh,Honourable Mr.Justice N.Senthilkumar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR Saraswathi Murugesan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority City Police Office Huzur Road, Coimbatore - 18 3.The Superintendent Central Prison Coimbatore 4.The Inspector of Police B-2, R.S. Puram Police Station Coimbatore

...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 pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent herein and made in C.No.107/G/IS/2024 dated 06.09.2024, and to set aside the same and directing the third respondent to produce the detenu, the petitioner's husband, C.Murugesan, @ Murugesa Pandian, aged 42 years, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Court and thereby setting him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ananthapadmanabhan For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

The petitioner, wife of the detenu viz. C.Murugesan @ Murugesa Pandian, aged 42 years, S/o.Chandrahasan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 06.09.2023 slapped on 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 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.7 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 learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.M.P.No.2089 of 2020. On a perusal of the

said order in page No.70 of the Booklet, Volume II, this Court finds that the said order relates to release of the accused on bail for the offence U/s.450, 395 and 397 I.P.C. whereas in the present case the petitioner / accused is convicted for the offence U/s.450, 395, 397, 120B, 109 and 506(i) I.P.C. 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 non-application 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 an accused in a similar case in C.M.P.No.2089 of 2020. However, the said bail was granted for the offence U/s.U/s.450, 395, 397 I.P.C. whereas the present

petitioner was convicted for the offene U/s.450, 395, 397, 120B, 109 and 506(i) I.P.C. 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 06.09.2024 in C.No.107/G/IS/2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., C.Murugesan @ Murugesa Pandian, S/o. Chandrahasan, aged 42 years, confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.] 28.03.2025 kas Index : Yes / No

M.S.RAMESH , J.

and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

kas To 1.The Additional Chief Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.