Vickaraman vs The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and Others

P.R. Shivakumar, J.—The detenu is the petitioner. He was detained by the second respondent by his Detention Order dated 20.06.2015, made in C.O.C. No. 41/2015, holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No. 322 of 2015 registered on the file of Sirkazhi Police Station for alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 342, 294(b), 506(ii) and 302 IPC r/w Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 and the adverse case in Crime No. 266 of 2011 registered on the file of Karaikal Town Police Station for alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 324, 323, 354, 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC altered as a case under Sections 147, 148, 342, 307, 324, 323, 354 and 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC.

The Detaining Authority viz., the second respondent slapped the Order of Detention after expressing subjective satisfaction that the petitioner confirmed to the definition of "Goonda", as his presence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detaining Authority has also expressed a subjective satisfaction that there was imminent possibility of his coming out on bail in the ground case, as he had been granted bail in the above said adverse case.

Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in challenging the Order of Detention, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the contention that the subjective satisfaction expressed by the Detaining Authority regarding the imminent possibility of the petitioner being released on bail in the ground case is not based on cogent materials and that the same could be termed as the ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority.

In elaboration of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground case and the adverse case cannot be compared, since the adverse case had been registered for an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code which attract lesser punishments, whereas in the ground case, the petitioner was facing the charge of an offence under Section 302 IPC among other offences. According to the counsel for the petitioner, one of the offences for which the ground case came to be registered being a capital offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the comparison of the same made with the adverse case itself will show the non-application of mind to the gravamen of the offences to be compared in expressing the subjective satisfaction regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.

The above said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner impresses us and we do not find any reason to reject the same as untenable. Accordingly, we hold that the subjective satisfaction expressed by the Detaining Authority regarding the necessity to slap the Order of Detention, namely the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case is not based on cogent reasons and the same can be termed as the ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority. On that ground alone, the Habeas Corpus Petition is bound to be allowed.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and this Court sets aside the order of detention dated 20.06.2015, made in C.O.C. No. 41/2015, by the second respondent, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District and directs the release of the detenu by name Vikaraman, S/o. Jaganathan, aged about 35 years forthwith, if his continued custody is not authorised in specific cases or by any other detention order.