Detention order quashed due to lack of material supporting the likelihood of bail, emphasizing the necessity for the Detaining Authority's rationality in their decision-making.

and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The petitioner herein is the detenu viz. Ramesh, aged about 43 years, S/o.Gurusamy, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 14.03.2025, slapped on him, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [ Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 ].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non- application of mind, as the statement under 161 Cr.P.C., said to have been made by the detenu's relative before the Sponsoring Authority is not discussed in the grounds of detention. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the statement relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority is discussed before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority would vitiate the Detention Order.

4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relative is not enclosed in the Booklet, which would indicate that the relatives of the detenu are planning to file a bail application to bring out the detenu on bail. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, there is a discussion by the detaining authority in paragraphs Nos.5 and 7 that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail application before the appropriate Court and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, but the statement U/s. 161 has not been enclosed in the booklet to bring out the detenu on bail. Hence, the veracity of such statement becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on the documents enclosed as discussed in the grounds of detention. In the absence of the important material, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspicious. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority without enclosing such material, suffers from non-application of mind.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of ' Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another' reported in ' 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. It is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- “10.In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in similar cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application number, whether the bail order was passed in respect of the co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the co-accused was on the same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it could be argued that there is