Bharani v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 07.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1700/2023 Bharani ..
Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector/District Magistrate Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
3.The Superintendent of Police Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police Mamallapuram Police Station Chengalpattu District.
..
Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the body of the detenu by name Thiru Muralitharan @ Kattupoonai, presently confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith after calling for the records pertaining to the detention order dated 04.01.2023 made in CPT.No.02/2023 passed by the 2nd respondent, Goonda Act, quash the same.
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Venkatesh For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.] (1)The petitioner, brother of the detenu herein, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 04.01.2023 slapped on his brother, 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 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 on humanitarian ground after recording the fact that the wife of the accused therein was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and that he was the only person available to take care of his wife. Hence, the similar case cited to arrive at the subjective satisfaction, is not similar and placing reliance on such order shows the non-application 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 orders of bail in similar case in Crl.MP.No.2404/2019 passed by the learned District Sessions Judge No.II, Kancheepuram. However, in page.No.113 of the Booklet, it is seen that the bail in the similar case was granted to the accused therein on the ground that his wife was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and that, he has to take care of her. 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. 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 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.
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 in the decision cited supra and in view of the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed. (7)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 04.01.2023 in CPT.No.2/2023 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.] 07.11.2023 AP Internet: Yes
To 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector/District Magistrate Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
3.The Superintendent of Police Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police Mamallapuram Police Station Chengalpattu District.
6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND SUNDER MOHAN, J., AP H.C.P.No.1700/2023 07.11.2023