Palanivel v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.02.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Palanivel ... Petitioner / Father of the detenue Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, No.132, Commissioner Office Building, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai District.
4.The Inspector of Police, (in charge Team B), Cyber Crime Police Station, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
... Respondents Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Memo No.482/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 16.10.2023 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to produce my son namely, Sudhakaran, Male, aged about 26 years, S/o.Palanivel is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam 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 is the father of the detenue viz., Sudhakaran, aged about 26 years, S/o.Palanivel, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, who has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 16.10.2023 slapped on him, branding him as "Cyber Law Offender" contemplated under Section 2(bb) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand 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 facts of the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is totally different and not similar to the present case, as the accused therein was involved in a case of love affair. Further, the offences charged as against the accused therein are different compared to the case on hand.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that facts of the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the offences in Crl.M.P.No.19579 of 2021, dated 09.11.2021 is totally different and not similar to the case on hand. Considering the nature of the bail order in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the case on hand, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail, 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 10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "10.
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 second respondent in Memo No.482/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 16.10.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sudhakaran, aged about 26 years, S/o.Palanivel, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, 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] 20.02.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: 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, Greater Chennai Police, No.132, Commissioner Office Building, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai District.
4.The Inspector of Police, (in charge Team B), Cyber Crime Police Station, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH , J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu 20.02.2024