M.Devi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.07.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.971 of 2024 M.Devi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai - 600 004.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to Memo
in BCDFGISSSV No.261/2024 dated 27.03.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Mahesh, aged about 50 years, S/o.Varadhan, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN , J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Mahesh, aged about 50 years, S/o.Varadhan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 27.03.2024 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, 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 non-application of mind, as the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority, as well as the statement made under 161 Cr.P.C. alleged to be obtained from the wife of the detenu/petitioner are not dated. Hence, the learned counsel raised a bona fide doubt as to the date on which the Special Report was sent by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority and as to when the statement was recorded of the detenu's wife. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detaining Authority, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on this undated documents, would vitiate the Detention Order.
4. On a perusal of the booklet, it is seen that the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority, as well as the statement under 161 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner/wife of the detenu, are not dated. When the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority and 161 statement are not dated, the veracity of the documents become doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the Sponsoring Authority has sent his Report to the Detaining Authority and as to when the statement of the petitioner was recorded. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority based on such undated materials, suffer 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 27.03.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.261/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue namely Mahesh, aged about 50 years, S/o.Varadhan, 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] 19.07.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Sni
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai - 600 004.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN , J.
Sni H.C.P.No.971 of 2024 19.07.2024