Muthuselvam, S/O.Dharmar, v. The Principal Secretary To

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.07.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED H.C.P(MD)No.748 of 2018 Muthuselvam : Petitioner Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

: Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, connected with the detention order passed in H.S(M). Confld.No.15/18, dated 14.05.2018, on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu, namely, Muthuselvam, aged about 42 years, S/o.Dharmar, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.] The petitioner is the detenu - Muthuselvam, aged about 42 years, S/o.Dharmar, The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his Detention Order in H.S(M).Confld.No.15/18, dated 14.05.2018, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section of 2(f) Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. Though the detention order is sought to be assailed on several grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the contention that in the ground case, the bail application filed by the detenu in Cr.M.P.No.1276 of 2018 was dismissed on 09.05.2018 by the Principal Sessions Court,

Thoothukudi, but, still the detaining authority expressed subjective satisfaction that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case and the said subjective satisfaction is nothing but ipse dixit not supported by cogent materials.

3. In elaboration of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subjective satisfaction regarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in a case, wherein the bail application filed by the detenu was dismissed, cannot be based on any other case in respect of other persons and that the very fact that no bail application is pending will negate the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, subject to an exception that a co-accused in the very same case placed under similar circumstances has been released on bail.

4. The submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in reply to the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also heard.

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Detaining Authority referred to the fact that the bail application filed by the detenu was dismissed in the ground case, namely, Crime No.73 of 2018, registered on the file of Eral Police Station. However, the Detaining Authority proceeded further to express a subjective satisfaction that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application. Such subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority shows total non-application of mind. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

6. In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Detention Order in H.S(M). Confld.No.15/18, dated 14.05.2018, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Muthuselvam, aged about 42 years, S/o.Dharmar, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.

7. In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(SAR-I) To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai -9.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

H.C.P(MD)No.748 of 2018 05.07.2018 NB ES/SKN/RSK/SAR 1/23.07.2018/3P/6C