K.Thirupathi v. District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District another

HCP(MD)No.1542 of 2024BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 04.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGANHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No. 1542 of 2024A. Rani... Petitionervs.1. State of Tamil Nadurep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District,Thanjavur.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Trichy, Trichy District.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in Detention Order passed in P.D.No.46 of 2024, dated 16.10.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely, the petitioner's son ie., Prabha @ Prabhakaran, aged about 34 years, S/o. Arunachalam, now detained at the Central Prison, Trichy before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Page No.1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1542 of 2024For Petitioner: Mr.N. PragalathanFor Respondents: Mr. A. Thiruvadikumar Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R[Order of the Court was made by G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.]The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Prabha @ Prabhakaran, Son of Arunachalam, aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.46 of 2024, dated 16.10.2024, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the detaining authority was swayed by the fact that the mother of the detenu is attempting to file a bail petition and hence, it is submitted by the learned Page No.2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1542 of 2024counsel for the petitioner that the subjective satisfaction that has been arrived at by the detaining authority at Paragraph No.5 of the order is not supported by any materials. Therefore, the same suffers from non-application of mind.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate the submissions, relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2005 (2) LW 946 [K.Thirupathi v. District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District & another].5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter.6. The detaining authority has considered the fact that the mother of the detenu is attempting to file a bail petition before the competent Court. Therefore, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.7. The satisfaction that has been arrived at by the detaining authority is merely on surmises and it is not based on any materials that has been placed before the detaining authority. At this point of time, it will be Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1542 of 2024relevant to take note of the Full Bench judgment, which has been referred supra. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:“24. The detaining authority is required to follow strictly and scrupulously the forms and rules of law prescribed in that behalf or by the statutory provision under which the order of detention is being made after arriving at a subjective satisfaction. In the event of any deviation or violation of the statutory provisions or infraction of constitutional guarantees, the Courts will not hesitate to quash the orders of detention. Whatever be the jurisdiction to detain and the slightest infraction of the constitutional guarantee would lead to the detenu being set at liberty.25. It is by now well settled that in all detention laws, the orders of detention and its continuance of detention should be in conformity with Article 22 of the Constitution of India and slightest infraction of the Constitutional protection enshrined therein would be a valid ground to set the detenu at liberty.26. There must be cogent material before the Authority passing the detention order for inferring that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. This inference must be drawn from material on record Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1542 of 2024and must not be the ipse dixit of the Authority passing the detention order.27. In the case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him--(a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail, and(b) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If the authority passes an order after recording its satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be struck down on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition to question it before a higher Court.28. It is neither possible nor advisable catalogue the types of materials which can form the basis of a detention order under the Act. That will depend on the facts and situation of a case. That is why there is no provision in the Act in that regard and the matter is left to the discretion of the detaining authority. However, the facts stated in the materials relied upon should be true and should have a reasonable nexus with the purpose for which the order is passed.”Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1542 of 20248. It is clear from the above that the detenu is in custody and he has not filed any bail petition and there is no material to show that he is taking steps to file a bail petition by himself or through his relatives or it was based merely on the presumption made by the detaining authority, the same reflects non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.9. In view of the above, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind and the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.10. In the result, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.No.46 of 2024, dated 16.10.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Prabha @ Prabhakaran, Son of Arunachalam, aged about 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.[A.D.J.C., J.] [G.A.M., J.] 04.07.2025 Index: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NotrpPage No.6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1542 of 2024To:1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District,Thanjavur.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Trichy, Trichy District.4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Page No.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1542 of 2024A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.ANDG. ARUL MURUGAN, J.trpORDER MADE INHCP(MD)No.1542 of 2024DATED : 04.07.2025Page No.8 of 8