The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another' reported in '

HCP.No.908 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.07.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.908 of 2024Rosi ... Petitioner/mother of the detenueVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 006.4.The Inspector of Police, T-5, Kundrathur Police Station, Chennai. ... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.41/2024, dated 18.03.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son E.Ashek, S/o.Elumalai, aged about 19 years, the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.S.AmarnathFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN, J.The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu viz., E.Ashek, S/o.Elumalai, aged about 19 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.03.2024 slapped Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024on him, 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].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 this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel raised a bona fide doubt as to when the documents were obtained and as to the date on which the Special Report was sent by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the Special Report of the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on these undated documents, would vitiate the Detention Order. 4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining Authority has stated that the Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to understand that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail applications before the appropriate Court and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. When the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated, the veracity of the Report becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the Sponsoring Authority has sent his Report. In the absence of the date, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority based on such undated materials, suffers from non-application of mind.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 20245. 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 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024practice 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 on 18.03.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.41/2024, is hereby set aside and the Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., E.Ashek, S/o.Elumalai, aged about 19 years, who is detained 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] 11.07.2024Index: Yes/NoAnuTo1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 006.4.The Inspector of Police, T-5, Kundrathur Police Station, Chennai.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN, J.Anu5.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai 6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.H.C.P.No.908 of 202411.07.2024Page 8 of 8

HCP.No.908 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.07.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.908 of 2024Rosi ... Petitioner/mother of the detenueVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 006.4.The Inspector of Police, T-5, Kundrathur Police Station, Chennai. ... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.41/2024, dated 18.03.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son E.Ashek, S/o.Elumalai, aged about 19 years, the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.S.AmarnathFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN, J.The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu viz., E.Ashek, S/o.Elumalai, aged about 19 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.03.2024 slapped Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024on him, 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].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 this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel raised a bona fide doubt as to when the documents were obtained and as to the date on which the Special Report was sent by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the Special Report of the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on these undated documents, would vitiate the Detention Order. 4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining Authority has stated that the Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to understand that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail applications before the appropriate Court and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. When the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated, the veracity of the Report becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the Sponsoring Authority has sent his Report. In the absence of the date, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority based on such undated materials, suffers from non-application of mind.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 20245. 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 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024practice 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 on 18.03.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.41/2024, is hereby set aside and the Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., E.Ashek, S/o.Elumalai, aged about 19 years, who is detained 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] 11.07.2024Index: Yes/NoAnuTo1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 006.4.The Inspector of Police, T-5, Kundrathur Police Station, Chennai.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.908 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN, J.Anu5.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai 6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.H.C.P.No.908 of 202411.07.2024Page 8 of 8