Quashed

Balamanikandeswari v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC16 May 2017HCP(MD)/102/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court quashed a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, setting the detenu at liberty. The Court held the order was based on mere ipse-dixit and non-application of mind as no bail application was pending and no co-accused in the same offence was granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Detention Order No.59 of 2016 dated 30.12.2016 is quashed; detenu Vinod Sivaguru is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

Balamanikandeswari Vs the Secretary to Government — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.05.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

H.C.P(MD)No.102 of 2017

¶6

Balamanikandeswari : Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶9

Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIV) Department, St. Fort George,

¶10

Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The District Magistrate and the District Collector, Dindigul,

¶12

Dindigul District.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Madurai. : Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of the detention order of the second respondent in Detention Order No.59 of 2016 dated 30.12.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Vinod Sivaguru (aged about 24 years), S/o.Subramani before this Court, who is detained at Central Prison, Madurai and set him at liberty.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶17

**O R D E R *************

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.]

¶19

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu – Vinod Sivaguru, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.59 of 2016 dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 30.12.2016, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is

¶20

¶21

under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶22

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶23

3.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since F.I.R was registered by the Police at 02.30 p.m., and crime number was assigned as 516 of 2016, it is illegal to mention the crime number in the arrest memo itself and he has not filed any bail petition till today before this Court.

¶24

4.While referring to the order of detention passed by the detaining authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the order of detention, wherein the detaining authority would state that in this case, bail has been granted to co-accused. Therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. This according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is bereft of particulars without cogent materials, which vitiates the impugned order of detention. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (7) Supreme Court Cases 181 (Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur).

¶25

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the second respondent would submit that the order of detention has been passed in due consideration of fact and law with a view to curtail his prejudicial activities and to maintain public order, and therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶26

6.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, bail has been granted to co-accused and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail would be a mere ipse dixit and that would vitiate the order of detention. It is trite law that when no bail application is pending, then it is only a logical conclusion that there is no likelihood of the person in custody would be released on bail. In the ground case, no bail application has been filed. If that be so, there are no cogent materials available before the detaining authority to come to the satisfaction that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. This would be indicative of the non-application of mind and it is only an expression of the impression made by the authority without any material whatsoever. Therefore, the impugned order is passed on mere Ipse-dixit and the order of detention cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In this connection, it is useful to refer the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 2012 (7) Supreme Court

¶27

¶28

Cases 181 (cited supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:

¶29

"12. In Rekha v. State of T.N. ((2011) 5 SCC 244) this Court while dealing with the issue held: (SCC pp.250-51 & 254-55, paras 7, 10 & 27)

¶30

'... 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."

¶31

(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.

¶32

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 the 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 eye of the law”.

¶33

7.In the light of the above fact and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention passed by the detaining authority.

¶34

In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Detention Order No.59 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 30.12.2016, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Vinod Sivaguru, son of Subramani, aged about 24 years is ordered to be set at

¶35

¶36

liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

¶37

In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶39

/True Copy/

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Rep. By the State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIV) Department, St. Fort George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and the District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Madurai. 4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & order), Fort Saint George, Chennai-9. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.M.Kannan , Advocate in SR.No. 56535 Ps/ssl AE/JC/SAR3/24.05.2017/4P/7C

¶41

ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.102 of 2017 Dated: 16.05.2017

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Balamanikandeswari v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balamanikandeswari v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasiya Vs the Secretary to Government

Raja Alias Rasappa Vs State of Tamilnadu

Murugammal (F-43/2017) Vs the State of Tamil Nadu