High Court · 2025

HCP.No.971 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 29.08.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No.971 of 2025Selvi ... PetitionerVs.1.The Additional Chief Secretary to GovernmentHome, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District CollectorOffice of the District CollectorTiruppur District 641 6043.The Superintendent of PoliceOffice of the Superintendent of PoliceTiruppur District 641 6034.The Superintendent of PrisonCentral Prison CoimbatoreCoimbatore 641 0185.The Inspector of PoliceAlangayam Police StationTirupur 635 701... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.971 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in Cr.M.P.No.34/GOONDA/2025 dated 30.04.2025 and quah the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of petitioner's son namely Madhankumar @ Lotta Madhan, S/o.Lakshminarayanan, aged about 25 years, detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.For Petitioner: Mr.R.Raj PrabhuFor Respondents: Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M.Arifa Thasneem Advocate ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz. Madhankumar @ Lotta Madhan, aged about 25 years, S/o.Lakshminarayanan, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 30.04.2025, slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.971 of 2025Bootleggers, 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 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 statement under 161 Cr.P.C., said to have been made by the detenu's relative before the Sponsoring Authority is not discussed in the grounds of detention. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the statement relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority is discussed before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority would vitiate the Detention Order. Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.971 of 20254. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relative is enclosed in the Booklet in Volume II in page No.13, stating that they are planning to file a bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, but the same has not been discussed in the grounds detention order. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that there is no discussion by the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail application before the appropriate Court and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. When the discussion is not available in the grounds of detention obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu stating that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, the veracity of such statement becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on the discussion made in the grounds of detention. In the absence of the discussion in the grounds of detention, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspicious. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on such material, suffers Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.971 of 2025from 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.971 of 2025normal 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 is liable to be quashed.7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.971 of 2025the second respondent on 30.04.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.34/GOONDA/ 2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Madhankumar @ Lotta Madhan, aged about 25 years, S/o.Lakshminarayanan, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, 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.] 29.08.2025 (2/2)kasIndex: Yes/NoNeutral CitationSpeaking / Non SpeakingPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.971 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.kasTo.1.The Additional Chief Secretary to GovernmentHome, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District CollectorOffice of the District CollectorTiruppur District 641 6043.The Superintendent of PoliceOffice of the Superintendent of PoliceTiruppur District 641 6034.The Superintendent of PrisonCentral Prison CoimbatoreCoimbatore 641 0185.The Inspector of PoliceAlangayam Police StationTirupur 635 7016.The Public ProsecutorHigh Court of MadrasChennai 600 104H.C.P.No.971 of 2025(2/2)29.08.2025Page 8 of 8