High Court · 2025

H.C.P.No.1146 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11-09-2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARH.C.P.No.1146 of 2025Suppulakshmi,W/o Selvam... PetitionerVs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, (Home) Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chenni - 600 0092. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.4. The Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem District ... RespondentsPRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for records pertaining to the order of detention dated 06.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in C.M.P.No.20/Drug Offender/Salem City/2025 dated 06.05.2025 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son by name Kasiprasth son of Selvam, aged Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1146 of 2025about 25 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.C.DeepakkumarFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERJ.Nisha Banu,J.andS.Sounthar,JThe petitioner is the mother of the detenu, viz., Kasiprasath, aged 25 years, son of Selvam, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.20/Drug Offender/Salem City/2025 dated 06.05.2025, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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] read with the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.100 Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1146 of 20252. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that the detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention that in similar case, bail was granted by the Additional District Judge, Special Court under EC and NDPS Act Cases, Salem in C.M.P.No.1490/2024 dated 07.10.2024 in Sooramangalam P.S. Cr.No.1108/2024/2024 for the offence under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered against one Naveeth, who was remanded on 13.08.2024 is not a similar case. However, in the said case i.e., C.M.P.No.1490/2024 dated 07.10.2024 bail was granted recording the fact that he was in possession of 5 kg of ganja and there was no previous case. Whereas in this case, the detenu is having one adverse case. Hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind, which Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1146 of 2025vitiates the detention order. Therefore, the learned counsel would state that the similar case referred to was not similar and on that score, the detention order is liable to be interfered with. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would state the some of the pages in the remand report, English version, has not been translated in vernacular language. Therefore, failure to supply material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative.4. On careful perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the similar case referred by the detaining authority shown in page No.10 at para No.5 of the grounds of detention stating that in C.M.P.No.1490/2024 registered in Cr.No.1108/2024 under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered against one Naveeth, bail was granted and hence, there is real possiblity of the detenue coming out on bail. However, in part-II page 17 of the booklet, in respect of similar case in C.M.P.No.1490/2024 registered in Cr.No.1108/2024, bail was granted based on the fact that there was no previous case. However, in the present case, the detenu is having one previous case. Therefore, the bail order that was relied upon by the detaining authority cannot be considered to be a similar one. Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1146 of 2025Further, as seen from page No.103 of the booklet, the remand report has not been properly translated.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, 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, Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1146 of 2025because 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 is liable to be quashed.7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent respondent in C.M.P.No.20/Drug Offender/Salem City/2025 dated 06.05.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz., Kasiprasath, S/o Selvam, Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1146 of 2025aged 25 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Salem, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (J.NISHA BANU, J.) (S. SOUNTHAR, J.)11-09-2025vsiTo1. The Secretary to Government, (Home) Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chenni - 600 0092. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.4. The Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem District.5. The Superintendent,, Central Prison, Salem.6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,ChennaiPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1146 of 2025J. NISHA BANU, J.andS. SOUNTHAR, J.vsi H.C.P.No.1146 of 202511-09-2025Page 8 of 8