Vanitha v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1816 of 2023 Vanitha .. Petitioner Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to petitioner's son's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 27.06.2023 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings No.
268/BCDFGISSSV/2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's son namely Jeeva, aged 22 years, son of Mari before this Court and set him at liberty, now petitioner's son detained at
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
For Petitioner :
Mr.C.C.Chellappan 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.] The petitioner, mother of the detenu Jeeva, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 27.06.2023 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 for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several points have been raised by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that incomplete bail order in similar case has been furnished to the detenu. It is pointed out that though the translated version is complete, the second page of the order dated 26.05.2021, which is in English, in
Crl.M.P.No.10485 of 2021 is not even found in the booklet. Therefore, the detenu is deprived of making effective representation.
4. This Court, upon examination of the Booklet, is unable to discard the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The detenu is not furnished with the documents which are relied upon by the detaining authority. Furnishing incomplete bail order in the similar case relied upon by the detenu would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
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 cases, 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.
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 coaccused 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. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 27.06.2023 in No.268/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jeeva, S/o.Mari, aged about 22 years, 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.] 27.11.2023 Index:Yes/No mmi To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai. 3.The Inspector of Police, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND SUNDER MOHAN, J., mmi H.C.P.No.1816 of 2023 27.11.2023