Anitha v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.2503 of 2023 Anitha ... Petitioner / Wife of the Detenue Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai -600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police, R-2, Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.421/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 25.09.2023 passed by the second respondent under the Tamilnadu Act, 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Abishek @ Iyer S/o.Nandakumar, aged about 27 years, the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vinoth Kumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, Abishek @ Iyer S/o.Nandakumar, aged about 27 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.09.2023 slapped on her son, 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, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail suffers from non-application of mind. In the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has simply observed that "the Sponsoring Authority has stated that it is learnt that Thiru.Abishek @ Iyer's relatives are taking steps to take him out on bail in R-2 Kodambakkam Police Station in Cr.No.184 of 2023 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court." However, the statement of the relatives of the detenu that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona
fide doubt as to when these statements were obtained from the relatives of the detenu and as to the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on these undated documents and the same vitiated the Detention order.
4. It is seen from records that the statements obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu, enclosed in the Booklet, stating that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, are not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that, in Para No.4, the Detaining Authority has stated that the Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to understand that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail in the ground case by filing bail applications before the appropriate Court, and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. When the statements obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu stating that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, are not dated, the veracity of the Report becomes doubtful. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority based on such undated materials, suffers from 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 No.10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "10.
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.Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in
Memo No.421/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 25.09.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu 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] 02.02.2024 Index: Yes/No Anu To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai -600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police, R-2, Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
6.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
H.C.P.No.2503 of 2023 02.02.2024