Deepika v. Additional Chief Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 14.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1583/2023 Deepika ..
Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police J8 Neelangarai Police Station Chennai.
.. 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 in Memo No.212/BCDFGISSSV/2023 date 06.06.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Vijay @ Kurangu Vijay son of Murugan aged about 24 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Vinoth Kumar 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 06.06.2023 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)Though several points have been raised by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction
that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the ground case by relying on a similar case suffers from non application of mind as the order passed in the similar case in Crl.MP.No.2054/2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai, is not similar to the present case. Learned counsel pointed out that the learned Judge while granting bail to the accused in the similar case, the learned Judge had taken note of the fact that the accused therein had got no previous case. Whereas, it is not so in the case of the detenu. Hence, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of total non application of mind. (4)This Court, upon examination of the records, is unable to discard the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, page No.
333, it is seen that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the bail order in Crl.MP.No.2054/2023 granted to the accused therein, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu herein is likely to be released on bail in the ground case. However, it is to be pointed out that the learned Judge while granting bail in Crl.MP.No.2054/2023 has particularly recorded the fact that the accused therein has got one previous case.
three previous cases. The Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration this vital aspect, while arriving at the subjective satisfaction. (5)Learned counsel also pointed out that in the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has simply observed that "the Sponsoring Authority has stated that it is learnt that Thiru Vijay @ Kurangu Vijay's relatives are taking steps to take him out on bail in J-8 Neelangarai Police Station Crime No.190/2023 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court". However, the statement of the relatives of the detenu that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to when these statements were obtained from the relatives of the detenu and as to the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on these undated documents and the same vitiated the Detention order.
(6)It is seen from records that the statements obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu, enclosed in the Booklet, stating that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, are not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen
that, in Para No.4, the Detaining Authority has stated that the Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to understand that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail in the ground case by filing bail applications before the appropriate Court, and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. When the statements obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu stating that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, are not dated, the veracity of the Report becomes doubtful. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority based on such undated materials, suffers from non-application of mind. (7)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.
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.''
(8) 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.
(9)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 06.06.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.212/2023 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. [SSSRJ] [SMJ] 14.12.2023 AP Internet : Yes
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police J8 Neelangarai Police Station Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND SUNDER MOHAN, J., AP H.C.P.No.1583/2023 14.12.2023