Preventive detention requires reliable material for subjective satisfaction; mere assumptions or presumption of bail applications are insufficient to justify detention.

ORDER :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the Second Respondent herein and made in C.No.49/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2024 dated 13.06.2024 and to set aside the same and directing The Third Respondent to produce the detenue the Petitioner's Son Manikandan S/o.Ganesan aged about 32 years now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Honble Court and thereby setting him at liberty.

The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings Cr.M.P.No.45/Drug Offender/2024 C1 dated 26.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

2.The Detaining Authority relied on the ground that the detenue Manikandan was arrested and remanded in Veerpandi Police Station in Crime No.304 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 North Police Station, Tiruppur Cirty, in Crime No.1468 of 2022 under Sections 294 (b), 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted to some other accused by the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur, in Crl.M.P.No.146 of 2023. 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.

3.In the impugned detention order the detaining authority presumed that the detenue may file a bail petition before the Court concerned in future. It is admitted by the detaining authority that no bail petition has been filed so far. Mere presumption in this regard would be insufficient and based on such presumption the authority cannot form an opinion that there is likelihood of causing breach of public order. Subjective satisfaction with reference to the materials available on record is to be considered for invoking Act 14 of 1982, which is missing in the present case.

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 respond