Mary v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

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 Mary ... Petitioner/mother of the detenue Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police, H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai.

... 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 relating to the detention order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.112/BCDFGISSSV/2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Silambarasan @ Silamba, son of Ponnusamy, aged about 23 years, who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal as Goonda before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu viz., Silambarasan @ Silamba, son of Ponnusamy, aged about 23 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, 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 in favour of the accused therein by recording the fact that there were two previous cases as against the accused therein.

4. Upon a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the detaining authority has relied on an order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.23536 & 23543 of 2023 dated 25.09.2023, subject to the satisfaction that the detenue is likely to be released on bail. In that case, the accused had only two previous cases; however, as per the remand report furnished to the detenue in the booklet, the detenue has involved in 5 previous cases.

Therefore, the order relied upon by the detaining authority cannot be said to be similar, subject to the satisfaction vitiated and suffers from nonapplication 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.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 coaccused 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 in No.112/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 16.02.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Silambarasan @ Silamba, son of Ponnusamy, aged about 23 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, 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.Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police, H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai.

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

6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.S.RAMESH , J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Anu 26.06.2024