[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]

(1)The petitioner, father of the detenu , has come forward with this petition

challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated

03.07.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the

Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

(3)Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that the bail order granted to the co-accused of

2

the detenu herein in the ground case relied on by the Detaining Authority

to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be

released on bail, was obtained where the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor had not objected for grant of bail to the co-accused therein and

however, bail was denied to the detenu herein in the ground case as the

Public Prosecutor opposed the petition only on the ground that the detenu

is likely to be detained under the Goondas Act.

(4)On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, in particular, paragraph No.5,

it is seen that the Detaining Authority had relied upon the order of bail

passed in Crl.MP.No.1228/2023 by this Court on 22.06.2023 in respect

of the co-accused of the detenu who was arrayed as A2 in the ground

case, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be

released on bail in the said case. However, a perusal of the Booklet, in

particular, page No.186, it is seen that bail was granted by th learned

Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, to the 2^nd accused/co-accused of the

detenu in the ground case in Crl.MP.No.1228/2023 as there was no

objection on the side of the prosecution with regard to the 2^nd accused.

However, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition in

3

respect of the detenu and the only objection that was raised by him in

respect of the detenu herein is that the detenu was likely to be detained

under the Goondas Act. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds

that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority

suffers from non-application of mind. Hence, on the above ground, the

Detention Order is liable to be quashed.

(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 considered a case where it is stated that in the grounds

of detention that relatives of detenu are taking action to take him on bail

in the criminal case in which the detenu was in remand and that in similar

cases, bail was granted by Courts. Since no details had been given about

the alleged similar cases in which bail was allegedly granted by the Court

concerned, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the absence of

details, the statement which is mere ipse dixit, cannot be relied upon and

that itself is sufficient to 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

4

quashed. It is relevant to extract paragraphs No.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 likelihood of

the accused being released on bail, because it is the

normal practice of most courts that if a co-accused has

been granted bail and his case is on the same footing

as that of the petitioner, then the petitioner is

ordinarily granted bail. However, the respondent

authority should have given