Home > Recent Judgements > Madras High Court Demonstrate That Bail Cannot Be Denied Only On The Basis Of Detention Orders
Jan 23, 2025
INTRODUCTION
In a significant ruling of Mohammed Tharik Anvar v. The State of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court declared that the issuance of a detention order against an individual does not prevent the court from deciding on the defendant’s motion for bail. An accused person was granted bail, despite the fact that there was a detention order in place under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. This concept was upheld by the judge.
FACTS
The petitioner, was accused of extorting ₹1,000 from the complainant by holding a knife in front of them. It was asserted by the state that Thar was a repeat offender who had a history of cases, including one for murder and two cases under the National Defense Personnel Act. Act 14 of 1982, also known as the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, was the legislation that the authorities used to commence detention proceedings as part of its preventative measures. Since the 28th of December, 2024, Thar had been detained in custody, and the detention order was issued while his bail application was still being processed.
Advocate, who oversaw Thar’s defense, argued that the First Information Report (“FIR”) was created in order to assist his imprisonment and that he had been completely exonerated in previous cases. Additionally, the defense brought attention to irregularities in the procedure, such as the absence of a test identification parade or an interview conducted in custody.
KEY ISSUES
- Does the presence of a detention order limit the court’s power to order the release of the defendant on bail?
- Is it possible to employ preventative detention as a means of defeating bail for criminal cases that are unconnected to one another?
JUDGMENT
Judgment made it clear that a detention order cannot prevent the court from independently examining a bail application based on the merits of the case. To facilitate the issuance of a detention order, the court highlighted that the bail application should not be allowed to stay pending for an extended period of time.
The bail was granted to Thar, but with the following stringent conditions:
In addition to reporting to the Fort Police Station twice a day, he is required to remain in Trichy.
Neither should he tamper with the evidence nor should he vanish.
In the event that bail conditions were violated, the trial court would have the authority to take the necessary actions. Regarding the detention order, the court decided that the legality of the order may only be disputed in front of the competent forum, and not during the bail hearing.
OBSERVATION
A strong emphasis was placed by the court on the independence of bail procedures from preventive detention measures. In spite of the fact that the State contended that Thar’s detention order was sufficient to justify the refusal of bail, the court strongly declared that the two procedures must continue to be kept separate. The attorney for the petitioner asserted that the laws governing incarceration were being used as a weapon to restrict Thar’s freedom. This allegation brought to light general issues regarding the inappropriate use of preventative detention for the purpose of administrative convenience.
It was noted by the court that it was concerned about procedural failures, such as the absence of a test identification parade, which undermined the case from the State. With this result, the idea that preventative detention should not encroach upon the authority of the court to examine bail applications is reaffirmed. Judgement affirmed the individual’s right to due process by granting bail, highlighting the fact that detention orders cannot take precedence over judicial review. This decision not only serves as a reminder of the role that the judiciary plays in protecting liberty, but it also serves as a caution against the possibility that detention statutes could be misused with improper intent.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
