High Court · 2025

HCP.No.1353 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 01.08.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No.1353 of 2025Yasodha... PetitionerVs.1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 0092.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Commissionerate, Chennai.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Inspector of Police, F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai ... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the order made in No.205//BCDFGISSSV/2025, dated 17.04.2025 in detaining the detenue under the Tamilnadu Act 14/1982 as a brand of Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue the Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1353 of 2025petitioner's son Praveen, Son of Velu, aged 24 years who is detained at the Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.A.ThirumaranFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings 205//BCDFGISSSV/2025, dated 17.04.2025 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.2.The Detaining Authority relied on the ground that the detenue Praveen was arrested and remanded in F-3 Nungambakkam Police Station in Crime Nos.235/225, 236/2025 and 242/2025. He has not filed any bail petition sofar in the said cases. However, the Sponsoring Authority has stated that the detenue's relatives are taking steps to take him out on bail in the criminal cases by filing bail application. In a similar case, registered by P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station in Crime No.123 of 2023 under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 bail was granted to some other accused Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1353 of 2025by the Principal Special Judge for Essential Commodities & Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 Cases, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.5272 of 2023. Thus, the Detaining Authority drew an inference that there is a possibility of coming out on bail in the above said cases, since it is similarly placed cases. 3.It is found that in the similarly placed case, the Court granted statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Such statutory bail cannot be equated in the bail application likely to be filed by the detenue's relatives. The comparison made would reveal that there is no application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Similar case need not be on similar facts. However, the anology and the legal principles adopted must be similar, so as to form an opinion that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind. Therefore, similarity does not mean or relatable to the facts of the case, but relatable to the legal principles and the grounds on which the bail was granted in the similar case. 4.In the present case, the similar case was considered and bail was granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, which cannot be equated with the bail application likely to be filed by the relatives of the detenue. Thus, there is no application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, while passing the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1353 of 2025impugned order of detention. Preventive detention being dreconian, the Detaining Authority must be subjectively satisfied and it cannot be issued on the mere basis that the criminal case has been registered.5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another1, 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. The relevant paragraphs 10 and 11 are extracted hereunder;“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 1[2011 (5) SCC 244] Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1353 of 2025has 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. Hence, mere satisfaction would be insufficient to invoke preventive detention law. The subjective satisfaction must have nexus, link and proximity relating to the adverse cases relied on. Perusal of the records in the present case would reveal that the similar case relied on is not actually similar. Thus, there is no application of mind and the detention order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.7.Accordingly, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings Memo No.205/BCDFGISSSV/2025, dated Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1353 of 202517.04.2025 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Praveen, Son of Velu, aged 24 years, 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.] 01.08.2025Index: Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NossdPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1353 of 2025To1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 0092.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Commissionerate, Chennai.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Inspector of Police, F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai 5.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Fort ST.George, Chennai – 9.6.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1353 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.ANDV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.ssdH.C.P.No.1353 of 202501.08.2025Page 8 of 8