THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No

H.C.P.No.198 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.06.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No.198 of 2025Kala ... PetitionerVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai,Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.3.The Inspector of Police,G-5, Secretariat Colony Police Station,Chennai.4.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.1271/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.198 of 20252nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son namely Sathya, aged about 25 years, S/o.Vinayagamurthy, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner's son namely Sathya, S/o.Vinayagamurthy, aged about 25 years, the detenu herein at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.R.MuthukumarFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J.)The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Sathya, aged about 25 years, S/o.Vinayagamurthy, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 20.12.2024 issued against her son, 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, as well as the learned Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.198 of 2025Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail. It is his submission that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the present case, as the bail was granted in favour of the accused therein by recording the fact that there is one previous case as against the first accused and there is no previous case as against the second accused therein.4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.33795 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024, is not similar to the case on hand since the accused therein was granted bail after recording the fact that the first accused had one previous case and the second accused had no previous case. However, it is admitted that there are 28 previous cases as against the detenu herein. Considering the nature of the bail order in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the case on hand, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.198 of 2025released on bail, suffers from non-application of mind.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 dealt with a situation where the Detention Order is passed without an application of mind. In case, any of the reasons stated in the order of detention is non-existent or a material information is wrongly assumed, that will 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 quashed. It is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.198 of 2025and 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 details about the alleged bail order in similar cases, which has not been done in the present case. A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored. 11.In our opinion, the detention order in question only contains ipse dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility of the accused coming out on bail and there was no reliable material to this effect. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained.”6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 20.12.2024 in No.1271/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sathya, aged about 25 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.198 of 2025years, S/o.Vinayagamurthy, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 04.06.2025 Index: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSniPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.198 of 2025To1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,Fort St.George,Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai,Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.3.The Inspector of Police,G-5, Secretariat Colony Police Station,Chennai.4.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.5.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.6.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law & Order),Chennai – 600 009.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.198 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.SniH.C.P.No.198 of 202504.06.2025Page 8 of 8