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

HCP.No.1169 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.1169 of 2025Sindhu Petitioner/Mother of DetenueVs1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.4.The Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem.RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in C.M.P.No.7/Goonda/Salem City /2025 dated 27.02.2025 on the file of the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, the second respondent herein and Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1169 of 2025quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Santhoshkumar, S/o. Krishnan, aged about 23 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mrs. SengkodiFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, Santhoshkumar S/o. Krishnan, aged about 23 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 27.02.2025 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].2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1169 of 20253. 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 C.M.P.No.1507 of 2022 dated 22.04.2022 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 C.M.P.No.1507 of 2022 dated 22.04.2022, the accused therein was enlarged on bail for the offences under Sections 341, 392, 397 and 506(ii) of BNS. However, in the present case, the offences involved are under Sections 126(2), 309(4), 311 r/w 351(3) 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 subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1169 of 2025Authority suffers from non-application of mind, as the offences involved in the similar case is distinctive from the detenue'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 case of the petitioner, then, of course, it could be argued Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1169 of 2025that 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 27.02.2025 in C.M.P.No.7/Goonda/Salem City/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1169 of 2025viz., Santhoshkumar s/o. Krishnan, aged about 23 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem, 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 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1169 of 2025To1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.4.The Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem.5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1169 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. nlH.C.P.No.1169 of 202509.07.2025Page 8 of 8