Advocates:
['M/s Suresh M', '', 'Karthikraja D', '', 'Public Prosecutor', '', 'Counter Filed']

H.C.P.(MD) No.1795 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 28.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

H.C.P.(MD) No.1795 of 2021

Thillaiyammal

... Petitioner / Mother of Detenu

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate

of Dindigul District,

Office of the District Collector,

Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison,

Central Prison, Madurai.

4.The Inspector of Police,

Dindigul Town North Police Station,

Dindigul District.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire

records relating to the detention order passed by the second

respondent in Detention Order No.62 of 2021, dated 06.09.2021 in

detaining the detenue under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of

1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to

produce the detenue namely, Perumal @ Mayil, S/o.Irulappan, Male,

aged about 23 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Madurai

before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

H.C.P.(MD) No.1795 of 2021

ORDER

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AND

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, namely, Perumal

@ Mayil, S/o.Irulappan, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been

detained by the second respondent by his proceedings in Detention

Order No.62 of 2021, dated 06.09.2021 holding him to be a "Goonda",

as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the

Detaining Authority.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the detention order has been passed without considering any

materials, which resulted in non-application of mind on the part of

the detaining authority.

4.The detaining authority has observed that one Mallees

Murugan, who is in connection with Crime No.572 of 2018 had filed a

bail application before the District Principal and Sessions Judge,

Dindigul and he was granted bail on 04.02.2019 in Cr.M.P.No.61 of

2019 and therefore, there is likelihood of the detenu in this case

coming out on bail. Such an observation is nothing but non-

application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

5.Admittedly, the detenu has not moved any bail

application. Therefore, merely because some other accused in some

other crime number has been released on bail, the same cannot be a

ground to hold that the detenu also likely to be released on bail,

particularly, when the detenu has not even moved any bail

application. It is also to be noted that a similar case theory

cannot be applied mechanically. Bail is normally granted taking

into consideration of facts and circumstances of each and every

case.

6.In view of the above, we are of the view that there is a

clear non-application of mind on the part of the detaining

authority. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be

quashed.

7.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and

the order of detention in Detention Order No.62 of 2021, dated

06.09.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu,

namely, Perumal @ Mayil, S/o.Irulappan, aged about 23 years, is

2/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

H.C.P.(MD) No.1795 of 2021

directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required

in connect