Muneeswari, Wife Of Detenue v. The District Collector And
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Muneeswari ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State represented by The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records from the first respondent in H.S.(M).Confdl.No.26/2019, dated 14.05.2019 by setting aside the said order of detention passed by the first respondent and setting the detenu, Dinesh Kumar, aged 22 years, son of Kumarsankar, at liberty, now detained in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The present Habeas Corpus Petition is directed against the Detention Order passed by first respondent in H.S.(M). Confdl.No.26/2019, dated 14.05.2019.
2. The sponsoring authority had recommended for the detention of the detenu under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 after the detenu was 1/5
arrested for a solitary incident. The detaining authority has branded the detenu as a 'Goonda' and has passed the detention order, dated 14.05.2019.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was only a solitary case against the detenu which was registered in Cr.No.62 of 2019 on the file of the Nalattinpudur Police Station, under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C, altered into Sections 364 and 302 I.P.C., and further altered into Sections 364, 120(b), 302, 201 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. The learned Counsel submitted that the detaining authority has not even stated anything referring to the subjective satisfaction of the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned Counsel further submitted that the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at without any materials and therefore, the detention order is vitiated.
4. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur reported in (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 181, wherein, it has been held as follows: "12. In Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Govt. & Anr., (2011) 5 SCC 244, this Court while dealing with the issue held :
"7.A perusal of the above statement in Para 4 of the grounds of detention shows that no details have been given about the alleged similar cases in which bail was allegedly granted by the court concerned. Neither the date of the alleged bail orders has been mentioned therein, nor the bail application number, nor whether the bail orders were passed in respect of the co-accused on the same case, nor whether the bail orders were passed in respect of other co-accused in cases on the same footing as the case of the accused......
***** ***** ***** ***** 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 2/5
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... .... A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored.
***** ***** ***** ***** 27.In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground." (Emphasis added) Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that it is not the similar case, i.e. involving similar offence. It should be that the co-accused in the same offence is enlarged on bail and on the basis of which the detenu could be enlarged on bail.
13. So far as the appellant's son is concerned, he had been arrested for the offence related to FIR No.53 (6) 2011 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act dated 14.6.2011. The FIR had been lodged against unknown persons, however, appellant's son was arrested on 19.6.2011 in respect of the said offence. Subsequently, the detention order dated 30.6.2011 was passed by the District Magistrate under N.S. Act on various grounds, inter-alia, that the appellant's son was involved in extorting of money and giving shelter to underground members of unlawful association, namely, Kangleipak Communist Party vide notification published in the Gazette of India on 3/5
13.11.2009 as his activities were pre-judicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order.
14. In support of the detention order, a large number of documents had been relied upon and supplied to the appellant's son including the copy of FIR No.254
(12) 2010 under Sections 17/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter called UA (P) Act) and copy of FIR No. 210 (5) 2011 under Section 20 of the UA (P) Act and released orders in those cases dated 13.12.2010 and 1.6.2011 respectively had been passed.
15. In the instant case, admittedly, the said bail orders do not relate to the co-accused in the same case. The accused released in those cases on bail had no concern with the present case. Merely, because somebody else in similar cases had been granted bail, there could be no presumption that in the instant case had the detenu applied for bail could have been released on bail. Thus, as the detenu in the instant case has not moved the bail application and no other co- accused, if any, had been enlarged on bail, resorting to the provisions of Act was not permissible. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is based on mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."
5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
6. We have carefully gone through the detention order. It is seen that the detaining authority has discussed about the case that has been registered against the detenu. The detaining authority has specifically stated that no bail petition has been filed by the detenu. However, he has arrived at the subjective satisfaction only on the ground that there is a likelihood of the detenu filing a bail application. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not supported by any materials and it clearly reflects the non-application of mind. Consequently, the detention order stands vitiated.
7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of detention passed by the first respondent in H.S.(M).Confdl.No.26/2019, dated 14.05.2019. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Dineshkumar, son of Kumarsankar, aged 22 years, who 4/5
is now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) rsb To 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law&ORder), Fort st. George, Chennai 9 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to Mr.K.PRABHU, Advocate ( SR-96743[F] dated 07/11/2019 ) 07.11.2019 MK (21.11.2019) 5P 7C 5/5