Madras High Court
Mani vs The Secretary To Government on 4 July, 2023
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
H.C.P.No.433 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.07.2023
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
H.C.P.No.433 of 2023
Mani .. Petitioner
vs
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ranipet, Ranipet District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet, Ranipet District.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.State Rep. By its
The Inspector of Police,
Sholinghur Police Station,
Ranipet District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the
records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd
respondent dated 19.12.2022 in Memo.B3/D.O.No.74/2022 against
the petitioner's son Ashok Pandiyan, M/24 years, son of Mani, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
H.C.P.No.433 of 2023
is confined at Central Prison, Vellore 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
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' (hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was listed in the Admission Board on 23.03.2023, this Court made the following order:
'Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 15.03.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 19.12.2022 bearing reference B3/D.O.No.74/2022 made by 'second respondent' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.
2. To be noted, father of the detenu is the petitioner.
3. Mr.A.Saranraj, learned counsel on record for habeas corpus petitioner is before us. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 302 of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for brevity] in Crime No.276 of 2022 on the file of Sholinghur Police Station.
4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest- offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 H.C.P.No.433 of 2023 offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
5. The detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as there is a delay in passing the detention order.
6. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks.
7. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.'
2. The aforementioned order made in the 23.03.2023 Admission listing shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order which means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order in the Admission listing shall be used in the instant order also.
3. There are two adverse cases. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.276 of 2022 on the file of Sholinghur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 H.C.P.No.433 of 2023
4. Mr.A.Saranraj, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
5. In the Admission Board, the point that live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped was projected but in the final hearing today, Mr.A.Saranraj, learned counsel for petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on one point and that one point turns on subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail.
6. Elaborating on the above point, learned counsel drew our attention to a portion of paragraph 5 of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order and that portion reads as follows:
'5....I am aware that Thiru.Ashokpandiyan has not filed a bail application before any court in ground case in Sholinghur Police Station Crime No.276/2022 u/s.147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302 IPC. However, information from reliable sources reveals that he is intending to file a bail petition through his relative...' https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 H.C.P.No.433 of 2023
7. Adverting to the aforementioned portion, learned counsel submitted that the detaining authority has taken note of the fact that the detenu has not moved any bail application in the ground case but however the detaining authority has proceeded on the basis that he has information from reliable sources that the detenu is intending to move bail petition through his relatives. Learned counsel submitted that this is not supported by any material much less credible material as would be evident from the grounds booklet. We had the benefit of perusing the grounds booklet and we find that the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is acceptable.
8. In response to the above argument, learned Prosecutor submitted that the detaining authority has relied on information supplied to him by the sponsoring authority. In our considered view, absent any material to support this, more particularly in the grounds booklet, this would get moved into the realm of surmises and conjectures. Subjective satisfaction more so subjective satisfaction qua imminent possibility of a detenu being enlarged on bail cannot be arrived at on the basis of anything in the realm of surmises and conjectures. Therefore, we have no hesitation in saying that the aforementioned subjective satisfaction arrived is clearly impaired. The sequitur is, impugned preventive detention order deserves to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 H.C.P.No.433 of 2023 dislodged.
9. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 19.12.2022 bearing reference B3/D.O.No.74/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Ashokpandiyan, aged 24 years, son of Thiru.Mani, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 04.07.2023 Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Vellore. To
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 H.C.P.No.433 of 2023
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police, Sholinghur Police Station, Ranipet District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 H.C.P.No.433 of 2023 M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL , J., mmi H.C.P.No.433 of 2023 04.07.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8