Rani v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.12.2023 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Rani W/o Vijay ..
Petitioner v.
State rep.by:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai
4. The Inspector of Police (Crime) S-7, Madipakkam Police Station Chennai ..
Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of pertaining to the order of detention dated on 10.08.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent in No.355/BCDFGISSSV/2023 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Thiru.Suriya @ Kosuru Suriya, S/o Vijay, Male, aged about 22 years, now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner ::
Mr.S.Senthilkumar For Respondents ::
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind, Advocate
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, namely, Suriya @ Kosuru Suriya, aged 22 years, S/o Vijay, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 10.08.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as 'Goonda' 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 appearing 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 appearing for the petitioner confined his argument to the point that the detaining authority has relied upon the bail order passed in Crl.M.P.No.19198 of 2021 dated 27.10.2021 by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in respect of the accused in similar case, which is not similar to the case on hand, as the bail was granted to the accused therein by recording that he was having only one previous case and that the injured was discharged from the hospital. However, in the present case, it is admitted that there are six adverse cases against the detenu. Therefore, the detention order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority suffers from non-application of mind.
4. This Court perused page-360 of the booklet and is convinced with the statement of the learned counsel for petitioner that the bail was granted to the accused in similar case on the ground that he was having one previous
case and that the injured was discharged from the hospital. However, in the present case, it is admitted that the detenu is involved in six adverse cases. This Court has held in several cases that the detention order is vitiated if there is no application of mind as to the real ground on which the bail was granted to the accused in similar case. It is also relevant to point out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another, (2011) 5 SCC 244, has held that in case any of the reasons stated in the order of detention is nonexistent or a material information is wrongly assumed, that will vitiate the detention order. It is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as follows:- "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.'' In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha's case, this Court finds that the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
5. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 10.08.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.355/2023 is hereby set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Suriya @ Kosuru
Suriya, S/o Vijay, aged 22 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 20.12.2023 ss To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai
4. The Inspector of Police (Crime) S-7, Madipakkam Police Station Chennai
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ss 20.12.2023