Boopathi v. Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.02.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.2523 of 2023 Boopathi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, R-11, Ramapuram Police Station, Chennai District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected
with the order of the 2nd respondent herein concerned in Memo No.489/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 18.10.2023 and quash the order of detention passed therein by the 2nd respondent herein against the detenu and consequently directing the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu by name Ramprasath @ Sittu, aged about 26 years, S/o.Boopathi, now detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sasikumar 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 father of the detenu Ramprasath @ Sittu, aged about 26 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.10.2023, slapped on his 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 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.M.P.No.19799/2018 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, 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.M.P.No.19799/2018 dated 20.11.2018, as there was no serious 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 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. 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 18.10.2023 in No.489/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ramprasath @ Sittu, aged about 26 years, S/o.Boopathi, 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] 22.02.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Sni
To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, R-11, Ramapuram Police Station, Chennai District.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni H.C.P.No.2523 of 2023 22.02.2024