Nirmala v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 18.10.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1444/2023 Nirmala ..

Petitioner

Versus

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

3.The Superintendent of Police Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.

5.The Inspector of Police G1, Maduranthagam Police Station Chengalpet District.

.. Respondents

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order No.67/CPT/2022, dated 18.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent under the respondent to produce the petitioner's son M.Mani @ Negro Mani S/o.Manogar aged about 20 years the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set aside the petitioner's son M.Mani @ Negro Mani, S/o.Manogar aged about 20 years the detenu herein at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Apunu For Respondents :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.] (1)The petitioner, mother of the detenu M.Mani @ Negro Mani, aged 20 years, S/o.Manogar, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 18.11.2022 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the 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 submitted that the Detaining Authority had arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the ground case by relying upon the bail granted to an accused in a similar case in Crime No.148/2019 for the alleged offences u/s.341, 294[b], 392, 397, 307 and 506[ii] IPC. However, the offences in the ground case in Crime No.589/2022 are not similar to that of the offences in the similar case.

(4)On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining Authority had relied upon the order of bail granted in the similar case in Crime No.149/2019 in Crl.MP.No.1588/2019 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the adverse cases and in the ground case. However, the offences in the similar case and in the ground case are not same or similar, so as to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. In the similar case, the detenu was charged for the offences u/s.341, 294[b], 392, 397 307 and 506[ii] of IPC. Whereas, in the ground case, he was charged for the offences u/s.341, 294[b], 323,

324, 384, 307, 506[ii] of IPC. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the ground case, 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 considered a case where it is stated that in the grounds of detention that relatives of detenu are taking action to take him on bail in the criminal case in which the detenu was in remand and that in similar cases, bail was granted by Courts. Since no details had been given about the alleged similar cases in which bail was allegedly granted by the Court concerned, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the absence of details, the statement which is mere ipse dixit, cannot be relied upon and that itself is sufficient to 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 No.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 reasons, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

(1)Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 18.11.2022 in No.67/CPT/2022 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.M, J.] 18.10.2023 AP

To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

3.The Superintendent of Police Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.

5.The Inspector of Police G1, Maduranthagam Police Station Chengalpet District.

6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND SUNDER MOHAN, J., AP H.C.P.No.1444/2023 18.10.2023