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

HCP.No.549 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.06.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.549 of 2025DEVIPetitioner(s)/ mother of the detenueVs1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Collector AndDistrict Magistrate Of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore District.3.The Superintendent Of Police,Cuddalore District.4.The Superintendent Of Prison,Central Prison Cuddalore, Cuddadlore Distirct - 4.5.The Inspector Of Police,Thirupapuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore....Respondent(s)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 12.02.2025 in C3/D.O./19/2025 against the petitioner's son Jeeva @ Jeevanantham, son of Kuppusamy, aged about 24 years, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at Liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Siva Kumar For Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, Jeeva @ Jeevanantham, son of Kuppusamy, aged about 24 years, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 12.02.2025 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 Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025[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 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 the there was no previous case as against the 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.7650 of 2023 dated 20.10.2023, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail after recording the fact that no previous case was reported against the accused therein. However, it is admitted that there are 11 previous cases as against the detenu herein. Considering the nature of the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025bail 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 released 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 paragraphs 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, Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025and 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 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025is liable to be quashed.7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 12.02.2025 in C3/D.O./19/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jeeva @ Jeevanantham, son of Kuppusamy, aged about 24 years, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 17.06.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuTo1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Collector AndDistrict Magistrate Of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore District.Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 20253.The Superintendent Of Police,Cuddalore District.4.The Superintendent Of Prison,Central Prison Cuddalore, Cuddadlore Distirct - 4.5.The Inspector Of Police,Thirupapuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore.6.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. AnuPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025H.C.P.No.549 of 202517.06.2025Page 8 of 8

HCP.No.549 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.06.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.549 of 2025DEVIPetitioner(s)/ mother of the detenueVs1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Collector AndDistrict Magistrate Of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore District.3.The Superintendent Of Police,Cuddalore District.4.The Superintendent Of Prison,Central Prison Cuddalore, Cuddadlore Distirct - 4.5.The Inspector Of Police,Thirupapuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore....Respondent(s)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 12.02.2025 in C3/D.O./19/2025 against the petitioner's son Jeeva @ Jeevanantham, son of Kuppusamy, aged about 24 years, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at Liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Siva Kumar For Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, Jeeva @ Jeevanantham, son of Kuppusamy, aged about 24 years, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 12.02.2025 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 Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025[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 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 the there was no previous case as against the 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.7650 of 2023 dated 20.10.2023, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail after recording the fact that no previous case was reported against the accused therein. However, it is admitted that there are 11 previous cases as against the detenu herein. Considering the nature of the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025bail 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 released 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 paragraphs 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, Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025and 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 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025is liable to be quashed.7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 12.02.2025 in C3/D.O./19/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jeeva @ Jeevanantham, son of Kuppusamy, aged about 24 years, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 17.06.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuTo1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Collector AndDistrict Magistrate Of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore District.Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 20253.The Superintendent Of Police,Cuddalore District.4.The Superintendent Of Prison,Central Prison Cuddalore, Cuddadlore Distirct - 4.5.The Inspector Of Police,Thirupapuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore.6.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. AnuPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.549 of 2025H.C.P.No.549 of 202517.06.2025Page 8 of 8