Allowed

Amulu v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC22 Mar 2024HCP/327/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging preventive detention of the petitioner's nephew as a 'Drug Offender' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court found the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority was dissimilar and quashed the detention order for non-application of mind.

What did the court decide?

Detention order in B3/D.O.No.37/2023 dated 25.08.2023 set aside; detenu Guruprasath directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

Amulu Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.327 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

H.C.P.No.327 of 2024

Amulu

... Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶13

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet, Ranipet District.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, Ranipet District.

¶15

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

¶16

5.The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet District. Cr.No.356 of 2023

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

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

¶19

Page 1 of 8

¶20

H.C.P.No.327 of 2024

¶21

Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records from the second respondent in B3/D.O.No.37/2023 dated 25.08.2023 and by setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent and produce the detenue, Guruprasath, S/o.Srinivasan, aged about 27 years before this Court and set him at liberty now detained in Central Prison, Salem.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioner, who is the aunt of the detenu viz., Guruprasath, S/o.Srinivasan, aged about 27 years, detained at Central Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.08.2023 slapped on the detenue, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders,

¶26

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

¶27

Page 2 of 8

¶28

H.C.P.No.327 of 2024

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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 was no previous case as against the accused therein.

¶32

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.565 of 2023, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail after recording the fact that no previous case was reported against the accused therein. However, it is admitted that there is one adverse cases

¶33

as against the detenu herein. Considering the nature of the bail order in Page 3 of 8

¶34

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

¶35

H.C.P.No.327 of 2024

¶36

the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the case on hand, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail, suffers from non-application of mind.

¶37

5. 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of detention is liable

¶38

to be quashed. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 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-

¶40

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

¶41

Page 4 of 8

¶42

H.C.P.No.327 of 2024

¶43

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.

¶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

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.

¶46

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

¶47

Page 5 of 8

¶48

H.C.P.No.327 of 2024

¶49

7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second

¶50

respondent i n B3/D.O.No.37/2023, dated 25.08.2023 , is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Guruprasath, S/o.Srinivasan, aged about 27 years, detained at Central Prison, Salem 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.327 of 2024

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

¶60

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet, Ranipet District.

¶61

3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, Ranipet District.

¶62

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

¶63

5.The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet District

¶64

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

¶65

7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶66

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

¶67

Page 7 of 8

¶68

H.C.P.No.327 of 2024

¶69

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

Anu

H.C.P.No.327 of 2024

22.03.2024

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

¶74

Page 8 of 8

Amulu v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amulu v. the Additional Chief 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

Lakshmi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

High Court Vs P.Dharmaraj

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

R.Sumathi Vs State Rep by

Maheswari Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Rani Vs State Rep by