Ramiya v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.08.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.1481 of 2024 Ramiya ... Petitioner Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep by, The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City.
3.The Inspector of Police, T-19, Kelambakkam Police Station, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records relating to petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 23.05.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.72/2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's husband namely
C.Sivaraman, aged 43 years, son of Chinna Durai before this Court and set him at liberty, now petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai600 066. For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.C.Chellappan For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.72/202, dated 23.05.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The Detaining Authority relied on the ground that the detenue V.Murugavel was arrested and remanded in T-19, Kelambakkam Police Station, Chennai in Crime No.139 of 2024. He has not filed any bail petition sofar in the said case. However, the Sponsoring Authority has stated that the detenue's relatives are taking steps to take him out on bail in the criminal cases by filing bail application. In a similar case, registered by T-10, Manimangalam Police Station in Crime No.258 of 2023 under Section 294(b), 341, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted to the accused Mohamed Sadham Hussain by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sri Perumbudur in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2024 on
02.01.2024. Thus, the Detaining Authority drew an inference that there is a possibility of coming out on bail in the above said cases, since it is similarly placed cases.
3.It is found that in the similarly placed case, the Court granted statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Such statutory bail cannot be equated in the bail application likely to be filed by the detenue's relatives. The comparison made would reveal that there is no application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Similar case need not be on similar facts. However, the anology and the legal principles adopted must be similar, so as to form an opinion that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind. Therefore, similarity does not mean or relatable to the facts of the case, but relatable to the legal principles and the grounds on which the bail was granted in the similar case.
4.In the present case, the similar case was considered and bail was granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, which cannot be equated with the bail application likely to be filed by the relatives of the detenue. Thus, there is no application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, while passing the impugned order of detention. Preventive detention being dreconian, the
Detaining Authority must be subjectively satisfied and it cannot be issued on the mere basis that the criminal case has been registered.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another1, 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. The relevant paragraphs 10 and 11 are extracted hereunder; "10.
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. Hence, mere subjective satisfaction would be insufficient to invoke preventive detention law. Such subjective satisfaction must have nexus, link and proximity relating to the adverse cases relied on. Perusal of the records in the present case would reveal that the similar case relied on is not actually similar. Thus, there is no application of mind and the detention order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
7.Accordingly, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings Memo No.72/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated
23.05.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., C.Sivaraman, aged 43 years, son of Chinna Durai before this Court and set him at liberty, now petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.] 27.08.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No gd
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City.
3.The Inspector of Police, T-19, Kelambakkam Police Station, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Fort ST.George, Chennai - 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd H.C.P.No.1481 of 2024 27.08.2024