Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Subbulakhsmi – Appellant
Versus
Additional Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department – Respondent
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 u
Preventive detention requires reliable material for subjective satisfaction; mere assumptions or presumption of bail applications are insufficient to justify detention.
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 a rational basis and application of mind by the Detaining Authority, which was absent in this case.
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.
Preventive detention must be justified by a direct and proximate connection to the likelihood of a breach of public order; reliance on remote past cases is insufficient.
Preventive detention requires a clear and justifiable connection between the individual's actions and a threat to public order, beyond merely having a criminal case registered against them.
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
