Muthumari v. The State Rep.By Its, The Secretary To Government (Home)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 12.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1491/2023 Muthumari ..
Petitioner
Versus
The State rep.by its 1.The Secretary to Government [Home] Prohibition & Excise Department Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St George Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate O/o.The District Collector & District Magistrate Kancheepuram District.
3.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District.
4.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police Sriperumbudur Police Station Kancheepuram 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 of pertaining to the order of detention dated 17.07.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent bearing No.RC.No.149/2023/M6-DO No.23/2023 and to quash the same and produce the detenu Rajesh Kumar @ Raja @ Appala Raja aged about 39 years son of Magalingam before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith from Central Prison, Salem. For Petitioner :
Mr.P.Pugalenthi For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.Aravind.C
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.] (1)The petitioner, wife of the detenu, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 17.07.2023 slapped on her husband, 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)The learned counsel for the petitioner though canvassed several points before this Court, this Court is able to find some force in his submission that there is no application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction. Learned counsel pointed out that the Detaining Authority has relied upon a similar case wherein he had stated about the grant of bail to an accused by name Veera @ Veerabahathiran by the learned District and Sessions Court No.II, Kancheepuram, in Crl.MP.No.521/2022 to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case However, the said similar case order is not one of granting bail to the accused therein but an anticipatory bail granted to the said accused. However, the Detaining Authority has referred to the said order as one passed in a bail application in the Grounds of Detention. The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority suffers from non application of mind. Hence, on the above ground, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.
(4) 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.
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.''
(5)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.
(6)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 17].07.2023 in RC.No.149/2023/M6-DO No.23/2023 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.] 12.12.2023 AP Internet : Yes
To 1.The Secretary to Government [Home] Prohibition & Excise Department Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St George Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate O/o.The District Collector & District Magistrate Kancheepuram District.
3.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District.
4.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police Sriperumbudur Police Station Kancheepuram District.
6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND SUNDER MOHAN, J., AP H.C.P.No.1491/2023 12.12.2023