H.C.P.No.1935 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.12.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

H.C.P.No.1935 of 2023

V.Balaji

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

2.The Commissioner of Police,

Tambaram City,

Office of the Commissioner of Police,

Sholinganallur, Chennai – 119.

3.The Superintendent of Prison,

Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 66.

4.The Inspector of Police,

T-9 Maraimalai Nagar Police Station,

Chengalpattu District.

... Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the

records relating to the detention order in Memo

No.33/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 14.07.2023 passed by the second

respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the

same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu V.Balaji,

S/o.Venkatesan, aged about 22 years, the detenu, now confined in

Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

H.C.P.No.1935 of 2023

Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at

liberty.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.P.Vishnu Prasad

For Respondents :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak

Additional Public Prosecutor

assisted by Mr.C.Aravind

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

The petitioner/detenu V.Balaji, has come forward with this

petition challenging the detention order passed by the second

respondent dated 14.07.2023 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 and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

Page 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

H.C.P.No.1935 of 2023

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the petition,

the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar case

relied upon by the detaining authority is not similar. It is pointed out

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that bail was granted to the

accused in the similar case recording the following facts:

(i) co-accused was granted bail vide order dated

28.04.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.2109 of 2023;

(ii) the detention of the petitioner therein under

Act 14 of 1982 was revoked by the Advisory Board; and

(iii) the petitioner therein is in judicial custody for

more than 86 days.

4. In paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining

authority has stated that there is a real possibility of the detenu

coming out on bail in the ground case, since, in a similar case, bail

was granted to the accused therein, by relying upon an order

passed by the Vacation Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at

Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No.2497 of 2023, dated 10.03.2023. On a

perusal of page Nos.393 to 397 of the Booklet, this Court finds that

bail was granted in the said case after recording that the co-accused

was granted bail vide order dated 28.04.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.2109 of

2023, the detention of the petitioner therein under Act 14 of 1982

Page 3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

H.C.P.No.1935 of 2023

was revoked by the Advisory Board and the petitioner therein is in

judicial custody for more than 86 days and not on merits. Therefore,

it is not a similar case and the subjective satisfaction of the

detaining authority regarding the possibility of the detenu coming

out on bail suffers from non-application of mind, which vitiates the

detention order.

5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rekha Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu through Se