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.

ORDER :

(S.M. Subramaniam, J.)

(PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 13.09.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings C.No.76/D.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2024, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Siranjeevi @ Appuchi @ Partha @ Parthasarathi, S/o.Ravikannan, aged 27 years before this Hon'ble High Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty.)

The order of detention passed by the 2 nd respondent in proceedings C.No.76/D.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2024, dated 13.09.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the similar bail order relied on by the detaining authority is dissimilar. The bail in the similar case was granted under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. and the same is statutory bail. Thus, reliance placed by the detaining authority has resulted in non application of mind. In the present case, the detenue is not entitled for statutory bail.

3. The Detaining Authority relied on the ground that the detenue Mr.Siranjeevi @ Appuchi @ Partha @ Parthasarathi, was arrested and remanded in Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station, Tiruppur City, in Crime No.701 of 2024. He has not filed any bail petition sofar in the said case. However, the Sponsoring Authority has stated that the detenue's relatives are taking steps to take him out on bail in the criminal cases by filing bail application. In a similar case, registered by Tiruppur City, Tiruppur Central Police Station in Crime No.129 of 2020 under Sections 8 (c) read with 20 (b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 bail was granted to some other accused by the Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore, in Special Crl.M.P.No.115 of 2020. Thus, the Detaining Authority drew an inference that there is a possibility of coming out on bail in the above said cases, since it is similarly placed cases.

4. It is found that in the similarly placed case, the Court granted statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Such statutory bail cannot be equated in the bail application likely to be filed by the detenue's relatives. The comparison made would reveal that there is no application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Similar case need not be on similar facts. However, the anology and the legal principles adopted must be similar, so as to form an opinion that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind. Therefore, similarity does not mean or relatable to the facts of the case, but relatable to the legal principles and the grounds on which the bail was granted in the similar case.

5. In the present case, the similar case was considered and bail was granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, which cannot be equated with the bail application likely to be filed by the relatives of the detenue. Thus, there is no application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, while passing the impugned order of detention. Preventive detention being dreconian, the Detaining Authority must be subjectively satisfied and it cannot be issued on the mere basis that the criminal case has been registered.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another, 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'bl