Manivannan v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 05.12.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1628/2023 Manivannan ..

Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Principal Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector/Detaining Authority O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate Villupuram.

3,The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4.The Superintendent of Police Headquarters, Villupuram District.

5.The Inspector of Police Arakandanallur Police Station, Villupuram 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 entire records pertaining to the impugned order made in Rc.No.C2/46216/2023 dated 11.07.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and approved by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and improper and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Kannamani, son of Mottaiyan, aged about 53 years now confined and kept in Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Kingston Jerold For Respondents :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.Aravind.C

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.] (1)The petitioner, son of the detenue herein, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 11.07.2023 slapped on his father, branding him as "Bootlegger" 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 contended that the bail order in the similar case relied on by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, was obtained during COVID-19 situation and that placing reliance on such order shows the nonapplication of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. (4)On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining Authority had relied upon the order of bail in similar case in CMP.No.311/2022 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram. However, in the Booklet, in particular, page No.

45, it is seen that the bail order in the similar case was obtained during COVID19 situation and bail was granted to the accused therein with a specific reference to COVID-19. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority to hold that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, suffers from nonapplication of mind. (5)The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rekha Vs.

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 case, 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.

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 aforesaid facts, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 27.06.2023 in No.261/BCDFGISSSV/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] [SM J] 05.12.2023 AP Internet: Yes

To 1.The Principal Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector/Detaining Authority O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate Villupuram.

3.The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4.The Superintendent of Police Headquarters, Villupuram District.

5.The Inspector of Police Arakandanallur Police Station, Villupuram District.

6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND SUNDER MOHAN, J., AP H.C.P.No.1628/2023 05.12.2023