Vijayashanthi v. The Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.02.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Vijayashanthi
...Petitioner/wife of the Detenu
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District Cuddalore.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police, Bhuvanagiri Police Station, Bhuvanagiri
...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 05.10.2023 in C3/D.O./58/2023 against the petitioner's husband Vijayan, Male aged 39 years, S/o. Subramaniyan, who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Senthilvel For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind
O R D E R
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner, wife of the detenu, Vijayan, S/o.Subramaniyan, aged about 39 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 05.10.2023 slapped on her husband, 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. The detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu coming on bail, suffers from nonapplication of mind.
4. The Detaining Authority had relied upon an order passed in Crl.M.P. No.688/2020 dated 31.01.2020 by the learned District Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, to infer that bail is likely to be granted to the detenu. However, on a perusal of the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.688 of 2020, this Court finds that the said bail application was filed by the accused therein on the ground that the detention order passed against him was quashed by this Court. Taking note of the same and also since there was no serious objection by the Public Prosecutor in granting bail to the accused, bail was granted to the accused in that case. Therefore, the said order relied upon
by the Detaining Authority to infer that in similar cases bail has been granted, 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.
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 05.10.2023 in C3/D.O./58/2023 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vijayan, aged 39 years S/o.Subramaniyan, 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] 08.02.2024 bga
Index : Yes / No
To
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District Cuddalore.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police, Bhuvanagiri Police Station, Bhuvanagiri
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 08.02.2024