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.

ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the detenue Mr. Prasanth @ Prasanth Kumar S/o Haridoss, Male, aged about 26 years and now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith by setting aside the order of Detention bearing BCDFGISSSV No. 730/2024 dated 27.06.2024 on the file of the Second respondent and pass such further or other order or orders as may deem fit and proper circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

1. The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No. 730/2024 dated 27.06.2024 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 granted by the Courts of Sessions on Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 9467 of 2017 is dissimilar. In the similar case bail was granted merely on the ground that the co-accused had already been granted by the same Court. However, in the present case, no such circumstances exist and thus, the reliance placed on by the detaining authority resulted in non-application of mind.

3. The Detaining Authority relied on the ground that the detenue Mr. Prasanth @ Prasanth Kumar was arrested and remanded in V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station in Crime No. 339 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 P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station in Crime No. 828 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294 (b), 323, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. bail was granted to some other accused by the Sessions Court, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. No. 9467 of 2017. 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'ble Supreme Court held that the order of detention is liable to be quashed. The relevant paragraphs 10 and 11 are extracted hereunder:

“10. In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent authority about t