Jenifar v. State Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2023 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Mrs.Jenifar W/o Vijayakumar @ Kurus ..
Petitioner v.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Office of the Commissioner Office (Goondas Section) Vepery Chennai 600 007
3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police (L&O) F-5, Choolaimedu Police Station Chennai ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in No.213/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 06.06.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Mr.Vijayakumar @ Kurus, aged about 34 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set petitioner's husband Mr.Vijayakumar @ Kurus, S/o Perumal, aged about 34 years, the detenu herein at liberty. For Petitioner ::
Mr.Rakesh Ayyappan S.V 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 wife of the detenu, namely, Vijayakumar @ Kurus, aged 34 years, S/o Perumal, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 06.06.2023 slapped on her husband, 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, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the detaining authority has relied upon the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1842 of 2020, wherein the accused therein was granted bail by recording the fact that the respondent police failed to produce the properties/contraband allegedly seized from the accused therein immediately before the Court.
4. This Court perused page-317 of the booklet and is convinced with the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority suffers from non-application of mind, as the bail was granted to the accused in similar case on the specific ground
that the properties/contraband allegedly seized from the accused therein were not produced before the Court, which is not similar to the case on hand. 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. 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 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 order is liable to be quashed.
5. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 06.06.2023 in No.213/BCDFGISSSV/2023 is hereby set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Vijayakumar @ Kurus, S/o Perumal, aged 34 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.) 23.11.2023 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 Office (Goondas Section) Vepery Chennai 600 007
3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police (L&O) F-5, Choolaimedu Police Station Chennai
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ss 23.11.2023