Ashok v. The Secretary To Government
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 Ashok S/o Jayaraman ..
Petitioner v.
1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section) Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai District
4. The Inspector of Police S-7, Madipakkam Police Station Chennai 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 records relating to the detention order vide Memo BCDFGISSSV No.313/2023 dated 13.07.2023 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Arun @ Maadu Arun, S/o Ashok, aged 23 years, (who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai) before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner ::
Mr.S.N.Arunkumar 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, Arun @ Maadu Arun, aged 23 years, S/o Ashok, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 13.07.2023 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 the petitioner confined his argument to the point that the detaining authority has relied upon the bail order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1414 of 2021 dated 04.06.2021 by the Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, 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 in similar case considering that no bad antecedent was reported against the accused therein. However, in the present case, it is admitted that there is one adverse case 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-144 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 no bad antecedent was
reported against the accused therein. However, in the present case, it is admitted that the detenu is alleged to be involved in one adverse case. 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 non-existent 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.
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.''
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 13.07.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.313/2023 is hereby set aside and the
habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Arun @ Maadu Arun, S/o Ashok, aged 23 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 Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section) Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai District
4. The Inspector of Police S-7, Madipakkam Police Station Chennai District
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ss 11.12.2023