Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Pushpa – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.575/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 25.05.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Thiru.Ganesan, S/o.Kumar, aged about 26 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's son Thiru.Ganesan, S/o.Kumar, aged about 26 years the detenue herein at liberty.
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.575/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 25.05.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Detaining Authority relied on some cases registered by the J-3, Guindy Police Station in Crime No.301 of 2022, wherein, the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.8322 of 2022. However, in the similar case, the accused was having one previous case. Thus, there was no objection on the side of prosecution t
Preventive detention requires a rational basis and application of mind by the Detaining Authority, which was absent in this case.
Preventive detention requires subjective satisfaction linked to the facts of the case; mere reliance on dissimilar bail orders without adequate reasoning is insufficient.
Preventive detention requires reliable material for subjective satisfaction; mere assumptions or presumption of bail applications are insufficient to justify detention.
Preventive detention orders must be based on rational and relevant grounds; reliance on dissimilar cases without proper justification constitutes a failure to apply mind, rendering the order invalid.
Preventive detention requires the detaining authority to apply its mind and provide a rational basis for its decision, rather than relying on mere assertions or dissimilar cases.
Preventive detention orders must be based on a proper application of mind and relevant legal principles, not mere assumptions or dissimilar cases.
Preventive detention orders must be based on concrete material and timely action; delays can invalidate such orders.
A preventive detention order is invalid if based on undated statements, as it undermines the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction and fails to meet legal standards.
Detention orders based on undated documents lack validity, as they indicate non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority, leading to quashing of such orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
