High Court · 2025

HCP No. 1269 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16-09-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARH.C.P No. 1269 of 20251. GokulnathS/o.Rajasekar, D.No.518, 4th Street, perambur, chennai-11.Petitioner(s)Vs1. Home, Prohibition and Excise DepartmentProhibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The State Rep. by the Commissioner of PoliceO/o. Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.3.The State Rep. by The Superintendent of Police,Central Prison, Puzhal, Thiruvallur District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1269 of 20254.The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,Respondent(s)Central Crime Branch, Chennai.PRAYERThe 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 the records of pertaining to the order or detention dated 13.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent bearing No.249/BCDFGISSSV/2025 and quash the same and produce the petitioner/detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith from Central Prison, Puzhal.For Petitioner(s):Mr. R.ThirumoorthyFor Respondent(s):Mr.A.GokulakrishnanAdditional Public Prosecutor ORDERJ.NISHA BANU J.andS.SOUNTHAR J.The petitioner/detenu, Gokulnath, son of Rajasekar, aged about 35 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 13.05.2025 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]. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1269 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 statement under 180 (3) of B.N.S.S, said to have been made by the detenu's relatives before the Sponsoring Authority, are not dated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to when this statement was obtained from the detenue's relatives. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the statements relied upon by 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 statement, would vitiate the Detention Order. 4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relatives, enclosed in Page No.151 of Volume-I, stating that they are planning to file a bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, are not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining Authority has observed that the Sponsoring Authority has stated that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1269 of 2025he came to understand 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 statements 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, are not dated, the veracity of such statements becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the statements were obtained. In the absence of the date, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on such undated material, 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:- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1269 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 in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1269 of 20257. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 13.05.2025 in No.249/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Gokulnath, son of Rajasekar, aged about 35 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. (J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)16-09-2025ASITo1.The Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The Commissioner of PoliceO/o. Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1269 of 20253.The Superintendent of Police,Central Prison, Puzhal, Thiruvallur District.4. The Inspector of Police,Central Crime Branch, Chennai.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1269 of 2025J.NISHA BANU J.ANDS.SOUNTHAR J.ASIH.C.P No. 1269 of 2025 16-09-2025