Mageshwari v. The Secretary To The Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.03.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR H.C.P.No.2684 of 2024 MAGESHWARI Petitioner(s)/ cousin of the detenue Vs
1. The Secretary To The Government, Home Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector And District Magistrate Of 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 North Police Station, Vellore District.
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 20.09.2024 in C3/D.O.No.88/2024 against the petitioner's Uncle Son Thirumalai, male, aged 32 years, S/o. Seethapathi Muthaliyar, confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and district the respondents to produce the detenue before the Court and set him at Liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Raman For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the cousin of the detenu, Thirumalai, aged 32 years S/o. Seethapathi Muthaliyar, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 20.09.2024 slapped on her cousin, 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 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 pointed out that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail. It is his submission that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the present case, as the bail was granted to the accused therein only by referring to Covid-19 pandemic.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.1191 of 2020 dated 03.07.2020, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was released on bail mainly by citing Covid-19. Therefore, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is irrational and the detention order is liable to quashed on the ground of non-application of
mind.
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 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 paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "10.
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."
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 20.09.2024 in C3/D.O.No.88/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thirumalai, aged 32 years S/o. Seethapathi Muthaliyar, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [N.S., J] 14.03.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Anu To
1. The Secretary To The Government, Home Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.District Collector And District Magistrate Of 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 North Police Station, Vellore District.
6.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai 7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Anu H.C.P.No.2684 of 2024 14.03.2025