CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANHCP No

HCP.No.1279 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANHCP No. 1279 of 2025MaheshwariW/o.Pushparaj, No.17, South Covam Road, Pudupet, Chennai - 600 002.PetitionerVs1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The Commissioner of PoliceGreater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.3.The Inspector of Police,F2 Egmore Police Station, Chennai.4.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison-II, (Men) Puzhal, Chennai.Respondent(s)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1279 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the second respondent in No.226/BCDFGISSSV/2025 and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Rajesh @ Poonai Rajesh, male aged 24 years son of Pushparaj who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai before this court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner: Mr.I.Gowri ShankarFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, Rajesh @ Poonai Rajesh, Male aged 24 years, S/o. Pushparaj, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.04.2025 issued against her son, 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].Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1279 of 20252. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by relying upon the bail order granted to the accused in a similar case, suffers from non-application of mind.4. On a perusal, it is seen that in paragraph 3 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case since in a similar case i.e. in Cr.M.P.No.5272 of 2023, dated 24.07.2023, bail was granted to the accused therein. On a perusal of the said order, in page No.47 of the Booklet, this Court finds that the said order relates to release of the accused on bail u/s.167[2] of Cr.P.C. and the bail was granted to the accused therein since he had been in prison for 63 days and not on merits. Therefore, it is not a similar case and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1279 of 2025regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind, which vitiates the detention order. Hence, on this 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1279 of 2025same 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.Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1279 of 20257. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 24.04.2025 in No.226/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Rajesh @ Poonai Rajesh, Male aged 24 years, S/o. Pushparaj, confined at Central Prison II, 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] 13.08.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NovumPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1279 of 2025To1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, chennai - 600 009.2.The Commissioner of PoliceGreater chennai police, vepery, chennai - 600 007.3.The Inspector of Police,F2 Egmore police station, chennai.4.The Superintendent of Prison,central prison-II, (Men) puzhal, chennai.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1279 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. vumH.C.P.No. 1279 of 2025 13.08.2025Page 8 of 8