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

HCP.No.1163 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.07.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No.1163 of 2025Preetha Muniyan Petitioner/Wife of DetenueVs1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Chennai – 600 009.2.Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai.3.Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.4.The Inspector of Police, D-3, Ice House Police Station, Law and Order, Chennai. 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 proceedings of the second respondent herein 111/BCDFGISSSV/25 dated Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 202525.02.2025 and quash the same and produce the detenue Mohan s/o Chandrasekar, now TPDA No.6846 now detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.G.MohanakrishnanFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, Mohan S/o. Chandrasekar, aged about 26 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.02.2025 issued against her husband, 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 and the learned Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.30749 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024 and came to a conclusion that in a similar case bail has been granted and that there is a likelihood of the detenue also to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar, as the offences in the similar case are different from the detenue's case and therefore, there is a non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. 4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention and the booklet, it is seen that in the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.O.P.No.30749 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024, the accused therein was enlarged on bail for the offences under Sections 103 of BNS. However, in the present case, the offences involved are under Sections 118(1), 109(1), 103(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS, which are not similar to the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority suffers from non-application of mind, as the offences involved in the similar case is distinctive from the detenu's case. Hence, on the above ground, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.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 Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025case 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 is liable to be quashed.7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 25.02.2025 in No.111/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mohan s/o. Chandrasekar, aged about 26 years, now confined at Central Prison, 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] 09.07.2025nlIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoPage 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025To1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Chennai – 600 009.2.Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai.3.Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.4.The Inspector of Police, D-3, Ice House Police Station, Law and Order, Chennai.5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. nlH.C.P.No.1163 of 2025Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 202509.07.2025Page 9 of 9

HCP.No.1163 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.07.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No.1163 of 2025Preetha Muniyan Petitioner/Wife of DetenueVs1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Chennai – 600 009.2.Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai.3.Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.4.The Inspector of Police, D-3, Ice House Police Station, Law and Order, Chennai. 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 proceedings of the second respondent herein 111/BCDFGISSSV/25 dated Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 202525.02.2025 and quash the same and produce the detenue Mohan s/o Chandrasekar, now TPDA No.6846 now detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.G.MohanakrishnanFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, Mohan S/o. Chandrasekar, aged about 26 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.02.2025 issued against her husband, 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 and the learned Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.30749 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024 and came to a conclusion that in a similar case bail has been granted and that there is a likelihood of the detenue also to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar, as the offences in the similar case are different from the detenue's case and therefore, there is a non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. 4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention and the booklet, it is seen that in the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.O.P.No.30749 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024, the accused therein was enlarged on bail for the offences under Sections 103 of BNS. However, in the present case, the offences involved are under Sections 118(1), 109(1), 103(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS, which are not similar to the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority suffers from non-application of mind, as the offences involved in the similar case is distinctive from the detenu's case. Hence, on the above ground, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.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 Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025case 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 is liable to be quashed.7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 25.02.2025 in No.111/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mohan s/o. Chandrasekar, aged about 26 years, now confined at Central Prison, 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] 09.07.2025nlIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoPage 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025To1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Chennai – 600 009.2.Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai.3.Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.4.The Inspector of Police, D-3, Ice House Police Station, Law and Order, Chennai.5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. nlH.C.P.No.1163 of 2025Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1163 of 202509.07.2025Page 9 of 9