Allowed

Lakshmi v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC21 Mar 2024HCP/2449/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother challenged her son's preventive detention as a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court found the detaining authority's bail-likelihood inference suffered from non-application of mind, quashed the detention order and directed the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 15.11.2023 in C.M.P.No.100/Goonda/Salem City/2023 set aside; detenu Mani @ Manikandan directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

Lakshmi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.2449 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

H.C.P.No.2449 of 2023

Lakshmi

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem District.

¶14

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem 636 007.

¶15

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem District. (Crime No.1656 of 2023)

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed und er Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the

¶18

Page 1 of 8

¶19

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

¶20

H.C.P.No.2449 of 2023

¶21

entire records leading to the detention of petitioner's son, the detenu, Mani @ Manikandan, aged 33, son of Raja, presently detained in Central Prison, Salem, under Act 14/1982, branded as 'Goonda' vide the detention order dated 15.11.2023 in C.M.P. No. 100/Goonda/Salem City/2023, on the file of the 2nd respondent herein, directing to produce the person or body of the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and thereafter set him at liberty from Central Prison, Salem, by setting aside the above order.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.B. Vasudevan

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner, mother of the detenu Mani @ Manikandan, aged 33 years, S/o. Raja, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 15.11.2023 slapped on her 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 Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu

¶27

Page 2 of 8

¶28

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

¶29

H.C.P.No.2449 of 2023

¶30

Act 14 of 1982].

¶31

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

¶32

The detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu coming on bail, suffers from nonapplication of mind.

¶33

The Detaining Authority had relied upon an order passed in C.M.P.No.1256/2019 on 24.04.2019 by the learned Principal Sessions

¶34

Judge, Salem, to infer that bail is likely to be granted to the detenu. However, on a perusal of the order passed in C.M.P.No.1256/2019, this Court finds that bail was granted to the accused therein since the co-accused in that case was also granted bail. Whereas the facts involved in the ground case are not similar to that case. Therefore, the said order relied upon by the Detaining Authority to infer that in similar cases bail has been granted, suffers from non application of mind, since the accused therein was not on a

¶35

Page 3 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

H.C.P.No.2449 of 2023

¶38

similar footing as that of the detenu. This issue is also covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through

¶39

Secretary to Government and Another reported in 2011 [5] SCC 244. The relevant observations are as follows:-

¶40

''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.

¶41

Page 4 of 8

¶42

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

¶43

H.C.P.No.2449 of 2023

¶44

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.''

¶45

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.

¶46

Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 15.11.2023 in C.M.P. No.100/Goonda/Salem City/2023 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mani @ Manikandan, aged 33 years S /o.Raja, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith

¶47

unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

Page 5 of 8

¶49

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

¶50

H.C.P.No.2449 of 2023

¶51

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 18.03.2024

¶52

bga Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No