Murugan v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.12.2023 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Murugan S/o Periyapandidevan ..
Petitioner v.
1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority Tiruppur City Tiruppur District
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Coimbatore Coimbatore District
4. State rep.by its The Inspector of Police Nallur Police Station Tiruppur District ..
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 entire records relating to the petitioner's son detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 14.07.2023 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.32/D.O./IS/Tiruppur city/2023, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Ananthapandi, S/o Murugan, aged 33 years before this Honble High Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner ::
Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi 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 father of the detenu, namely, Ananthapandi, aged 33 years, S/o Murugan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 14.07.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as 'Drug 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 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 petitioner submitted that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case, suffers from non-application of mind, as the accused in similar case was granted bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., and not on merits.
4. On perusal of the records, this Court is convinced that the petition for bail was filed by the accused in similar case only under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., even though the order dated 29.06.2020 passed in Spl.C.M.P.No.115 of 2020, which was relied upon by the detaining authority, is shown to be as an interim bail. Whereas the detenu in the
present case has not moved any bail application in the alleged ground case on the date when the detention order came to be passed. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case, suffers from nonapplication of mind, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another, (2011) 5 SCC 244, holding that 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. It is relevant to extract paragraph No.27 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court hereunder:- 27.
In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal.
granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed.''
5. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 14.07.2023 in C.No.32/D.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2023 is hereby set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ananthapandi, S/o Murugan, aged 33 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.) 11.12.2023 ss
To
1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority Tiruppur City Tiruppur District
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Coimbatore Coimbatore District
4. The Inspector of Police Nallur Police Station Tiruppur District
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ss 11.12.2023