Kalai Selvi v. The Secretary To The Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Kalai Selvi ... Petitioner/mother of the detenue Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Office of the Commissioner of Police/ Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore District.
... Respondents
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 16.02.2024 in C.No.09/G/IS/2024 against the petitioner's son R.Yugesh, aged 22 years, son of Ravi, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court ans set him at liberty.
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH , J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu viz., R.Yugesh, aged 22 years, son of Ravi, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 16.02.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand 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 considering his health condition.
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.1802 of 2020 dated 01.07.2020, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail considering his health condition. 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 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.
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 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.09/G/IS/2024, dated 16.02.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., R.Yugesh,
aged 22 years, son of Ravi, confined at 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] [S.M., J] 26.06.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Anu
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Office of the Commissioner of Police/ Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore District.
5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH , J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu 26.06.2024