Pachammal v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.01.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1691 of 2023 Pachammal ... Petitioner Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Salem, Salem District.
5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the detention dated 21.07.2023 in detention order S.C.No.14 of 2023, on the file of the second respondent herein, and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the Kollapuri S/o.Kanjamalai Hindu aged about 65 years who is now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Thamarai Selvan For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu Kollapuri, aged 65 years, S/o.Kanjamalai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 21.07.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act,
1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as 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 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 where the learned Public Prosecutor had not objected for grant of bail to the accused therein.
4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining Authority had relied upon the order of bail passed in a similar case in Crl.MP.No.250/2016 by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. However, bail was granted to the accused in the similar case in Crl.MP.No.250/2016 as there was no objection on the side of the prosecution
to release the accused therein on bail. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority suffers from non-application of mind. Hence, on the above ground, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.
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 dealt with a situation where the Detention Order is passed without an application of mind. In case, any of the reasons stated in the order of detention is non-existent or a material information is wrongly assumed, that will 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 paragraph Nos.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 coaccused 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 facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 21.07.2023 in S.C.No.14/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Kollapuri, aged 65 years, S/o.Kanjamalai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 12.01.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Sni
To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Salem, Salem District.
5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni H.C.P.No.1691 of 2023 12.01.2024