R.Sangeetha v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.12.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN R.Sangeetha ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Perambalur District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.

5.The Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station, Perambalur.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the second respondent, pertaining to the order made in Cr.M.P.No.09/2023 dated 23.05.2023 in detaining the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 as a Drug Offender and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and against law and direct the

respondents to produce the detenu, namely Ravikaran, S/o.Ramanathan, who is detained at the Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.M.R.Kuyilan 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, sister of the detenu Ravikaran, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 23.05.2023 slapped on her brother, 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 for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subjective

satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority suffers from nonapplication of mind as the detaining authority has relied upon the bail order in Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2019 dated 04.04.2019 wherein the accused was released on bail after recording no objection of the Prosecutor.

4. In paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case, since, in a similar case, bail was granted to the accused therein, by relying upon an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court and Special Court under Essential Commodities Act Cases, Pudukkottai, in Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2019, dated 04.04.2019. On a perusal of page Nos.90 and 91 of the Booklet, this Court finds that bail was granted in the said case after recording that the Prosecutor has no objection for grant of bail and not on merits. Therefore, it is not a similar case and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind, which vitiates the detention order.

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 dealt with a situation where the Detention Order is passed without 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. In the instant case, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail by referring to a bail order granted to an accused in a similar case in Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2019, dated 04.04.2019.

However, bail was granted in the said case on the ground that the Prosecutor has not raised objection for grant of bail and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail suffers from non-application of mind. 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.

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 23.05.2023 in

Cr.M.P.No.09/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ravikaran, S/o.Ramanathan, aged about 28 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.) 13.12.2023 Index : Yes / No mmi To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Perambalur District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.

5.The Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station, Perambalur.

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

S.S. SUNDAR , J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

mmi 13.12.2023