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

HCP.No.708 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24.06.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.708 of 2025Arulmani ... Petitioner/mother of the detenuVs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Additional chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,Tambaram City, Chennai.3.The Superintendent of prisons,Central prison, Puzhal-2, Chennai-600 066.4.The Inspector of Police,Law and Order, T3, Pallavaram police station, Chennai-600 117.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.708 of 2025issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records from the 2nd respondent in connection with order BCDFGISSSV No.07/2025 dated 28.02.2025 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's son namely, Dinesh Kumar alias Dheenu S/o.Sampath aged 26 years, now confined in Central prison-2, Puzhal, Chennai under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Ms.S.NadhiyaFor 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 viz.,Dinesh Kumar @ Dheenu S/o.Sampath aged 26 years, confined in Central Prison-2, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.02.2025, 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 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.708 of 20252. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3.Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind as the Special Report filed by the Investigating Officer is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel raised a bona fide doubt as to when the Special Report was sent by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on this undated document, would vitiate the Detention Order. 4. It is seen from the records, particularly in Volume-I of the booklet, that the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority in page Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.708 of 2025No.143 is not dated. When the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated, the veracity of the Report becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the Sponsoring Authority has sent his Report. In the absence of the report, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspicious. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority based on such undated materials, 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:-Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.708 of 2025“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 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.708 of 2025in 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 28.02.2025 in BCDFGISSSV No.07/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Dinesh Kumar @ Dheenu S/o.Sampath aged 26 years, now confined in Central prison-2, Puzhal, Chennai, 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] 24.06.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuTo1.The Additional chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,Tambaram City, Chennai.Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.708 of 20253.The Superintendent of prisons,Central prison, Puzhal-2, Chennai-600 066.4.The Inspector of Police,Law and Order, T3, Pallavaram police station, Chennai-600 117.5.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai. 6.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.708 of 2025H.C.P.No.708 of 202524.06.2025Page 8 of 8