Vijayaraj @ Vijayan v. The Secretary To The Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 31.01.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Vijayaraj @ Vijayan

...Petitioner/ Detenu

Vs.

1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2. District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Vellore.

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

5. The Inspector of Police, Vellore PEW Police Station, Vellore District.

...Respondents

Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second

respondent dated 27.09.2023 in C3/D.O. No.100/2023 petitioner/Detenu Vijayaraj @ Vijayan, Male aged 53 years, S/o. Ayyadurai, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.D. Balaji For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The petitioner, Vijayaraj @ Vijayan, Son of Ayyadurai, aged about 53 years,who is the detenu, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 27.09.2023, branding him as "Bootlegger" 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 are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the bail order in the similar case relied on by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, was obtained during COVID19 situation and that placing reliance on such order shows the nonapplication of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.

4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining Authority had relied upon the order of bail in similar case in Crl.MP.No.1206/2021 passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Vellore. However, in the Booklet, it is seen that the bail order in the similar case was obtained during COVID-19 situation and bail was granted to the accused therein with a specific reference to COVID-19. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority to hold that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, suffers from non-application of mind. This issue is also covered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another reported in 2011 [5] SCC 244. The relevant observations are as follows:- ''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.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.''

5. 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.

6. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 27.09.2023 in C3/D.O.No.100/2023 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,Vijayaraj @ Vijayan, aged 53 years S/o.Ayyadurai, 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] 31.01.2024 bga Index : Yes / No

To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2. District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Vellore.

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

5. The Inspector of Police, Vellore PEW Police Station, Vellore District.

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

7. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

M.S.RAMESH , J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

bga 31.01.2024