Jaya Rani v. State Rep.By Its,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.2120 of 2023 Jaya Rani ... Petitioner Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by, The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.
5.The Inspector of Police, Andimadam Police Station, Ariyalur District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent vide his Proceedings Cr.M.P.No:16/2023 dated 30.09.2023 against the petitioner's son John Brito, male, aged 24 years, S/o.Chinnapparaj, now confined in Central Prison, Trichy and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Muruganantham 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 mother of the detenu John Brito, aged 24 years, S/o.Chinnapparaj, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 30.09.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as "Sexual 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, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 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 where the learned Public Prosecutor had no serious objection for grant of bail to the accused therein.
4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining Authority had relied upon the order of bail passed in a similar case in Crl.O.P.No.885/2021 by the Ariyalur Principal Sessions Court, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. However, bail was granted to the accused in the similar case in Crl.O.P.No.885/2021
dated 18.03.2021, as there was no objection on the side of the prosecution to release the accused therein on bail. 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. 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 coaccused 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."
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 30.09.2023 in Cr.M.P.No: 16/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., John Brito, aged 24 years, S/o.Chinnapparaj, 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] 06.02.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Sni
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.
5.The Inspector of Police, Andimadam Police Station, Ariyalur District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni H.C.P.No.2120 of 2023 06.02.2024