Habeas corpus petition challenging a Goonda detention order; the court found the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority was dissimilar, showing non-application of mind, and quashed the detention.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
H.C.P.No.415 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.415 of 2024
Indhira
... Petitioner / mother of the Detenue
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, H-6 RK Nagar Police Station, Chennai District, Chennai. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
H.C.P.No.415 of 2024
PRAYER:
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in 08/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 04.01.2024 against the petitioner's son, Aridoss @ Ari, S/o.Kumar, Male, aged 23 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chnnai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, Aridoss @
Ari, S/o.Kumar, aged 23 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 04.01.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug
Page 2 of 8
H.C.P.No.415 of 2024
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
[Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
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 co-accused had been released on bail thereof, and on that ground, bail was granted in favour of the accused therein.
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.18431 of 2021, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail after recording the fact that co-accused had been released on bail thereof. Considering the nature of the bail order in the similar case relied https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8
H.C.P.No.415 of 2024
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.
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 to be quashed. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
“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
Page 4 of 8
H.C.P.No.415 of 2024
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.
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. ”
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.
Page 5 of 8
H.C.P.No.415 of 2024
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second
respondent in No.08/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 04.01.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Aridoss @ Ari, S/o.Kumar, aged 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.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
06.06.2024
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.
Page 6 of 8
H.C.P.No.415 of 2024
5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page 7 of 8
H.C.P.No.415 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu
H.C.P.No.415 of 2024
06.06.2024
Page 8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the detention order under TN Act 14 of 1982 was valid when the Detaining Authority relied on a dissimilar bail order to conclude likelihood of release on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and AnotherRelied on¶5
'2011 [5] SCC 244' · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Indhira
The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai District
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai
The Inspector of Police, H-6 RK Nagar Police Station, Chennai District, Chennai
M.S. Ramesh
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
