Allowed

Onitta v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC10 Jun 2024HCP/310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife's habeas corpus petition challenged her husband's preventive detention as a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court found no material supporting the detaining authority's inference that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, held the detention order suffered from non-application of mind, quashed it, and ordered his release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 30.12.2023 set aside; detenu Edisonraj directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

Onitta Vs the Secretary to the Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.310 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

H.C.P.No.310 of 2024

Onitta

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009

¶12

2.District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District Tiruppur

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Police Tiruppur Tiruppur District

¶14

4.The Superintendent Central Prison Coimbatore

¶15

5.State Rep By:The Inspector of Police Vellakovil Police Station Tiruppur District ... Respondents

¶16

Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

H.C.P.No.310 of 2024

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.12.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.72/GOONDA/2023 against the petitioner husband EDISONRAJ, M/23 years, son of Jayabal, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by C.Aravind

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

¶23

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz. Edisonraj, aged about 23 years, S/o.Jayabal, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.12.2023 slapped on her husband, 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 Act 14 of 1982].

¶24

Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

H.C.P.No.310 of 2024

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned

¶27

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶28

3.One of the requisites for the detaining authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to come out on bail is like drawing an inference that the detenu has either filed a bail application which is said to be pending or that he is likely to file a bail application or in the alternate, his relatives are taking steps to file such an application. All these aspects are conspicuously absent in the detention order and therefore the consequential inference drawn by the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to come out on bail, suffers from non application of mind.

¶29

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

¶30

Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

H.C.P.No.310 of 2024

¶32

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:-

¶33

“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.

¶34

11. In our opinion, the detention order in

¶35

Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

H.C.P.No.310 of 2024

¶37

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. ”

¶38

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

¶39

in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶40

Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent on 30.12.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.72/GOONDA/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Edisonraj, S/o.Jayabal, aged about 23 years, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶41

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 10.06.2024

¶42

kas

¶43

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation

¶44

Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

H.C.P.No.310 of 2024

¶46

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