S.Lakshmi v. The Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.07.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.728 of 2024 S.Lakshmi ... Petitioner/Mother of the detenu Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in No.127/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 24.02.2024 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenue, namely Sridhar, S/o. Selvaraj, aged 33 years as Goonda, now he is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Ms.M.Kalyani For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz., Sridhar, S/o. Selvaraj, aged 33 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.02.2024, slapped on 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, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3.Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from nonapplication of mind as the Special Report filed by the Investigating Officer is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel raised a bona fide doubt as to when the Special Report was sent by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on this undated document, would vitiate the Detention Order.
4. It is seen from the records that the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated. Further, the statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu, enclosed in the Booklet, stating that they are planning to file a bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, is also not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that, in Para No.4, the Detaining Authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail applications before the appropriate Court and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail.
When the statements obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu stating that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, is not dated and even the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated, the veracity of the Report becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the Sponsoring Authority has sent his Report. In the absence of the report, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect.
satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority based on such undated materials, 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 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 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 on 24.02.2024 in Memo No.127/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sridhar, S/o. Selvaraj, aged 33 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai, 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] 01.07.2024 Index: Yes/No Anu To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai, Chennai.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu 4.The Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.728 of 2024 01.07.2024