Allowed

R.Sumathi v. State Rep by

Madras HC22 Mar 2024HCP/211/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A mother filed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging her son's detention under the Goondas Act. The Court quashed the detention order as it was passed based on an analogy to an unrelated case, demonstrating non-application of mind. The petitioner's son was directed to be set at liberty.

What did the court decide?

The detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.11.2023 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

R.Sumathi Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.211 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

H.C.P.No.211 of 2024

¶9

R.Sumathi

¶10

... Petitioner/mother of the detenue

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai-600 009.

¶13

2.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai, Chennai.

¶14

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

¶15

4.The Inspector of Police, M1-Madhavara Police Station, Madharavaram, Tiruvallur. ... Respondents

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

H.C.P.No.211 of 2024

¶19

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 entire records leading to the detention of petitioner's son who is detained as Goonda at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai by the second respondent vide his order No.598/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 18.11.2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the body of the detenue, Dinesh Raj @ Basha / detenue, S/o.Ramesh, aged about 23 years from Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Chandran For Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

¶21

ORDER

¶22

M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶23

The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu viz., Dinesh Raj @ Basha, S/o.Ramesh, aged about 23 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, h as come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.11.2023

¶24

slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

H.C.P.No.211 of 2024

¶28

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶29

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶30

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 case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the present case, as the bail was granted in favour of the accused therein by recording the fact that the there were two previous cases as against the accused therein.

¶31

4. Upon a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the detaining authority has relied on an order passed in Crl.M.P.No.22719 of 2022, subject to the satisfaction that the detenue is likely to be released on bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8

¶32

H.C.P.No.211 of 2024

¶33

In that case, the accused had two previous cases; however, as per the remand report furnished to the detenue in the booklet, the detenue has five adverse cases of similar nature. Therefore, the order relied upon by the detaining authority cannot be said to be similar, subject to the satisfaction vitiated and suffers from non-application of mind.

¶34

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Rekha Vs. State of

¶35

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

¶36

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:-

¶37

“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

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Page 4 of 8

¶40

H.C.P.No.211 of 2024

¶41

bail order was passed in respect of the co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the coaccused 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.

¶42

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. ”

¶43

6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

¶44

in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

Page 5 of 8

¶47

H.C.P.No.211 of 2024

¶48

order is liable to be quashed.

¶49

7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second

¶50

respondent in No.598/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 18.11.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Dinesh Raj @ Basha / detenue, S/o.Ramesh, aged about 23 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai , is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶51

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]

¶52

22.03.2024

¶53

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶54

Anu

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page 6 of 8

H.C.P.No.211 of 2024

1.Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai-600 009.

¶60

2.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai, Chennai.

¶61

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

¶62

4.The Inspector of Police, M1-Madhavara Police Station, Madharavaram, Tiruvallur.

¶63

5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶64

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

Page 7 of 8

¶67

H.C.P.No.211 of 2024

¶68

M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Anu

H.C.P.No.211 of 2024

22.03.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

Page 8 of 8

R.Sumathi v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sumathi v. State Rep by

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

Lakshmi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

High Court Vs P.Dharmaraj

A.Moorthy @ Thirumoorthy Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Maheswari Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Rani Vs State Rep by

Amulu Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government