Allowed

G.Ramakrishna Reddy v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC24 Jul 2024HCP/216/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition, the High Court quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act because the detaining authority relied on an undated Special Report, demonstrating non-application of mind and vicarious vitiation of the order. The Court directed the release of the detenue.

What did the court decide?

Detention order No.695/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 26.12.2023 set aside. Detenue directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

G.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs Government of Tamilnadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.216 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.07.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.216 of 2024

¶7

G.Ramakrishna Reddy .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

¶10

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

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - II, Forgery Investigation Wing, Chennai.

¶12

The Superintendent of Prisons, Office of the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prion, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. .. Respondents

¶13

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

¶14

1/9

¶15

H.C.P.No.216 of 2024

¶16

Prayer :

¶17

Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed unde r Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order made in Order No.695/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 26.12.2023 passed by the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenue, Rusheekesh, aged 33/2024, S/o.G.Ramakrishna Reddy, residing at No.15-201, Industrial Estate, Palamaner, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh - 517 408 and now detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Kumar

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner herein, who is father of the detenue viz., Rusheekesh, S/o.Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 33 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 26.12.2023 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

¶23

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

¶24

2/9

¶25

H.C.P.No.216 of 2024

¶26

Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶27

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶28

3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the detenue moved a bail application before the appropriate Court which is pending, suffers from non-application of mind, as the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel raised a bona fide doubt as to when the documents were obtained and as to the date on which the Special Report was sent by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on these undated documents, would vitiate the Detention Order.

¶29

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

¶30

3/9

¶31

H.C.P.No.216 of 2024

¶32

4. It is seen from the records that the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that, in Para No.3, the Detaining Authority has stated that the Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to understand that the detenue moved a bail application before the appropriate Court which is pending and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is likely to be released on bail. When the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated, the veracity of the Report becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenue would also depend on when the Sponsoring Authority has sent his Report. In the absence of the report, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority based on such undated materials, suffers from non-application of mind.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

4/9

¶37

H.C.P.No.216 of 2024

¶38

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:-

¶39

“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.

¶40

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

¶41

5/9

¶42

H.C.P.No.216 of 2024

¶43

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. ”

¶44

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.

¶45

7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 26.12.2023 in No.695/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Rusheekesh , son of Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 33 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶46

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

¶47

24.07.2024

¶48

Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no

¶49

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

¶50

6/9

¶51

H.C.P.No.216 of 2024

¶52

grs

¶53

Note :- Registry shall forthwith return the booklet containing the materials, on which, the Detaining Authority has placed reliance, to the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner with due acknowledgment.

¶54

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

¶55

7/9

¶56

H.C.P.No.216 of 2024

¶57

¶58

The Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

¶59

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

¶60

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - II, Forgery Investigation Wing, Chennai.

¶61

The Superintendent of Prisons, Office of the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prion, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

¶62

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶63

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

¶64

8/9

¶65

H.C.P.No.216 of 2024

¶66

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

grs

H.C.P.No.216 of 2024

24.07.2024

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

¶71

9/9

G.Ramakrishna Reddy v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ramakrishna Reddy v. Government of Tamilnadu

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

Mallika Vs the State Rep by Its

A.Yunuskhan Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Jayakodi Vs the Home Secretary

G.Mounika Vs State Rep.by

Jannadul Firdose Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Tamilarasi Vs the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu