D.Vennila v. State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.01.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN D. Vennila ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Addl. Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

4.The Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai.

... Respondents Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the Detention Order in

B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V. No.329/2023 dated 25.07.2023 by the second respondent herein against the detenu, Deepak, S/o.Selvam, aged 23 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu, Deepak, aged about 23 years, S/o.Selvam, who is now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.V. Sathish 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, who is the wife of the detenu Deepak, S/o.Selvam, aged 23 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.07.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand 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 grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the following grounds: (i) The Detaining Authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the relatives of the detenu Deepak are taking steps to file a bail application before the appropriate Court in the ground case in Crime No.464/2023. However, in the materials supplied along with the order of detention, there are no materials available as to how the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file bail application; and (ii) The Detaining Authority has relied upon the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.17395/2014 and came to the conclusion that in a similar case bail has been granted and that there is a likelihood of the detenu to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the order relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar and there is non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter.

5. While arriving at a subjective satisfaction, the Detaining Authority has stated that the detenu's relatives are taking steps to file a bail application. However, in the booklet supplied, there are no materials whatsoever to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu's relatives are taking steps to file a bail application. The said statement of the Detaining Authority is a mere ipse dixit. It is also seen that in the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.17395/2014, the accused therein was enlarged on bail for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 IPC @ 302 IPC on the ground that the investigation was complete. However, in the present case, it is not so. Hence, the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority cannot be considered to be an order passed in a similar case. On these grounds, the order of detention is liable to be interfered with.

6. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.

7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent, in BCDFGISSSV No.329/2023, dated 25.07.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Deepak, S/o.Selvam, aged 23 years, 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] 03.01.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Sni To 1.The Additional Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

4.The Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Sni 03.01.2024