Petitioner challenged her brother's detention under the TN Prevention of Goondas Act as unsupported by evidence of bail likelihood. Court quashed the order due to non-application of mind and directed immediate release.
Detention order set aside; detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
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.484 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.484 of 2024
Sangeetha
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009
2.District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District Tiruppur
3.The Superintendent of Police Tiruppur Tiruppur District
4.The Superintendent Central Prison Coimbatore
5.State Rep By:The Inspector of Police Vellakovil Police Station Tiruppur District ... Respondents
Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER:
H.C.P.No.484 of 2024
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.75/GOONDA/2023 against the petitioner's brother AUTO ARAVINDHAN @ ARAVINDHAN, M/26 years, Son of Chandrasekar, 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.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by C.Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the sister of the detenu viz. Auto Aravindhan, aged about 26 years, S/o.Late.Chandrasekar, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.12.2023 slapped on her brother, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.484 of 2024
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
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.
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
Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.484 of 2024
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 paragraph Nos.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 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
Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.484 of 2024
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. ”
in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.
Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.484 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J. kas
confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, 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] 10.06.2024
kas
To
1.The Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
3.The Superintendent of Police Tiruppur, Tiruppur District
4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore
6.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104
H.C.P.No.484 of 2024
Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a detention order suffers from non-application of mind when the ground of imminent release on bail is supported only by an ipse dixit statement without reliable material.
Whether such an irrational subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority renders the detention order liable to be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and anotherExplained¶29
_Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another'_ reported in _'2011 [5] SCC 244'_ · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sangeetha
The Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition & Excise Department
District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur
The Superintendent of Police Tiruppur
The Superintendent Central Prison Coimbatore
The Inspector of Police Vellakovil Police Station
M.S.RAMESH
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
