Vijayalakshmi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.02.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.2076 of 2023 Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Detaining Authority, Tiruppur City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The State rep. by, Inspector of Police, Nallur Police Station, Tiruppur City.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records of the 2nd respondent, in his proceeding in C.No.67/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2023 dated 06.10.2023 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu, Rajmohankumar, S/o.Kanagarajan, aged about 49 years, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, set him at liberty fortwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Dhilipan For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.
The petitioner herein, who is the daughter of the detenu Rajmohankumar, aged 49 years, S/o.Kanagarajan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 06.10.2023, slapped on her father, 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, as well as 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 ground that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.146/2023 dated 01.02.2023 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 submitted that the order relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar, as the offences in the similar case are different than the detenu's case and therefore, there is a non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.
4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that in the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.146/2023 dated 01.02.2023, the accused therein was enlarged on bail for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. However, in the present case, the offences involved are under Sections 294(b), 342, 307, 420 and 506(ii) IPC. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority suffers from non-application of mind, as the offences involved in the similar case is distinctive from the detenu's case. Hence, on the above ground, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.
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', had dealt with a situation where the Detention Order is passed without an application of mind. 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:- "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 co-accused 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 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.
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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 06.10.2023 in C.No.67/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Rajmohankumar, aged 49 years, S/o.Kanagarajan, 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] 12.02.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Sni
To 1.The Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Detaining Authority, Tiruppur City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Inspector of Police, Nallur Police Station, Tiruppur City.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni H.C.P.No.2076 of 2023 12.02.2024