Devi v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented byThe Secretary to Government,Department of Home, Prohibition
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M S RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN, C ARAVINDORDERM S RAMESH
Outcome
Allowed
2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Act
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. 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…
- Para 66. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2468 of 20237. Accordingly, the…
Judgment
H.C.P.No.2468 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 29.04.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.2468 of 2023 Devi... Petitioner/mother of the detenueVs.
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai-73.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-Puzhal-II,Puzhal, Chennai.
The Inspector of Police,P-5, mkb Nagar Police Station, Chennai. ... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2468 of 2023 Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Memo No.587/BCDFGISSSV/2023 passed by the second respondent on 16.11.2023 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Prasanth @ Kulla Prasanth, son of Baskar, aged about 29 years before this Court, who is now detained at Central Prison, Puzhal-II, and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.A.ElumalaiFor Respondents: Mr.E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. AravindORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN, J.The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu viz., Prasanth @ Kulla Prasanth, son of Baskar, aged about 29 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal-II, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 16.11.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2468 of 2023 Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and 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 the bail was granted in favour of the accused therein by recording the fact that there was one previous case as against the accused therein.4. Upon a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the detaining authority has relied on an order passed in Crl.M.P.No.19198 of 2021 dated 27.10.2021, subject to the satisfaction that the detenue is likely to be released on bail. In that case, the accused had one previous case; however, as per the remand report furnished to the detenue in the booklet, the detenue has two adverse cases and 20 previous cases. Therefore, the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2468 of 2023order relied upon by the detaining authority cannot be said to be similar, subject to the satisfaction vitiated and suffers from non-application of mind.
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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2468 of 2023petitioner, 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.
Operative part
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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2468 of 20237. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.587/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 16.11.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Prasanth @ Kulla Prasanth, son of Baskar, aged about 29 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal-II, 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] 29.04.2024Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuTo1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai-7Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2468 of 20233.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-Puzhal-II,Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police,P-5, mkb Nagar Police Station, Chennai. 5. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2468 of 2023M.S.RAMESH , J. andSUNDER MOHAN, J.Anu H.C.P.No.2468 of 202329.04.2024Page 8 of 8
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Act.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.