Mother challenged her son's preventive detention as a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, arguing the bail order relied on by the Detaining Authority was dissimilar. The Court held the subjective satisfaction suffered from non-application of mind and quashed the detention order, directing release.
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.
HCP.No.457 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.457 of 2024
Emimery
... Petitioner
Vs.
Kanchipuram Taluk & District.
... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 8
HCP.No.457 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents herein to produce the detenu Abimanyu, Male, aged 21 years, S/o .Aruldoss, confined at Central Prison Puzhal, under impugned detention order in Rc.No.261/2023/M6-D.O.No.01/2024 dated 07.01.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Shanmugam For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, 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 Abimanyu,
aged about 21 years, S/o. Aruldoss, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 07.01.2024 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 Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8
HCP.No.457 of 2024
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 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 accused was detained under Goondas Act and it was revoked by the Advisory Board.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in C.M.P.No.1942 of 2021 dated 19.11.2021, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail after recording the fact that the accused was detained under Goondas Act and it was revoked by the Advisory Board. Considering the nature of the bail order in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8
HCP.No.457 of 2024
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 on the same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8
HCP.No.457 of 2024
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.
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 8
HCP.No.457 of 2024
on 07.01.2024 in Rc.No.261/2023/M6-D.O.No.01/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Abimanyu, Male, aged about 21 years, S/o.Aruldoss, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
11.06.2024
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 8
HCP.No.457 of 2024
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8
HCP.No.457 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni
H.C.P.No.457 of 2024
11.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind in the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and AnotherFollowed¶5
'2011 [5] SCC 244' · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Emimery
Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai
The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Kanchipuram
The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram
The Superintendent, Central Prison – Puzhal-II, Chennai
The Inspector of Police, C-2, Sunguvar Chathiram Police Station, Kanchipuram
M.S. Ramesh
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
