High Court · 2025

H.C.P.No.1385 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.09.2025C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARH.C.P.No.1385 of 2025Deepa... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenu-vs-1.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by its Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.3.The Superintendent of Police,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Cuddalore.4.The Inspector of Police,Muthandikuppam Police Station,Cuddalore District.... RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in C3/D.O/63/2025 dated 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 202504.05.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Thiru.Ramesh, S/o.Thangavel, who is now detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Hon`ble Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.K.Gandhi KumarFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Addl. Public Prosecutor*****O R D E RJ.NISHA BANU, J.ANDS.SOUNTHAR , J. The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, namely Ramesh, S/o.Thangavel, aged about 40 years, detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order dated 04.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in C3/D.O/63/2025, branding him as "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2 (b) of 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.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 20253. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the 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 dated 01.04.2025, granted to the accused in a similar case in C.M.P.No.2493 of 2025, suffers from non-application of mind. 4. In paragraph No.6 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, bail was granted to the accused therein and relied upon an order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District in Crime No.15 of 2025 on the file of P.E.Wing Police Station. On a perusal of the said order in Page No.87 of the Booklet (Vol.I), this Court finds that the bail was granted to the accused therein on the ground that there was no previous against the said accused, whereas it is stated that the detenue herein has three previous cases and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 2025Detaining Authority, regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind, which vitiates the detention order.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. In the instant case, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail by referring to a bail order granted to an accused in a similar case in Cr.M.P.No.1358 of 2023. However, the said bail was granted on the ground that the investigation has been completed and not on merits and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail suffers from non-application of mind. Hence, on the above grounds, the Detention Order 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:-4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 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.7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 2025allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in C3/D.O./63/2025 dated 04.05.2025, is hereby set aside. The detenue, viz., Ramesh, S/o.Thangavel, aged 40 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.(J.N.B.J.,) (S.S,J.,) 17.09.2025Index: Yes / NoInternet: Yes / Noar6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 2025To:1.The Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.3.The Superintendent of Police,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Cuddalore.4.The Inspector of Police,Muthandikuppam Police Station,Cuddalore District.6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 2025J.NISHA BANU, J.ANDS.SOUNTHAR , J. arH.C.P.No.1385 of 202517.09.20258/8

H.C.P.No.1385 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.09.2025C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARH.C.P.No.1385 of 2025Deepa... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenu-vs-1.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by its Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.3.The Superintendent of Police,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Cuddalore.4.The Inspector of Police,Muthandikuppam Police Station,Cuddalore District.... RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in C3/D.O/63/2025 dated 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 202504.05.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Thiru.Ramesh, S/o.Thangavel, who is now detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Hon`ble Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.K.Gandhi KumarFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Addl. Public Prosecutor*****O R D E RJ.NISHA BANU, J.ANDS.SOUNTHAR , J. The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, namely Ramesh, S/o.Thangavel, aged about 40 years, detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order dated 04.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in C3/D.O/63/2025, branding him as "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2 (b) of 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.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 20253. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the 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 dated 01.04.2025, granted to the accused in a similar case in C.M.P.No.2493 of 2025, suffers from non-application of mind. 4. In paragraph No.6 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, bail was granted to the accused therein and relied upon an order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District in Crime No.15 of 2025 on the file of P.E.Wing Police Station. On a perusal of the said order in Page No.87 of the Booklet (Vol.I), this Court finds that the bail was granted to the accused therein on the ground that there was no previous against the said accused, whereas it is stated that the detenue herein has three previous cases and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 2025Detaining Authority, regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind, which vitiates the detention order.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. In the instant case, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail by referring to a bail order granted to an accused in a similar case in Cr.M.P.No.1358 of 2023. However, the said bail was granted on the ground that the investigation has been completed and not on merits and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail suffers from non-application of mind. Hence, on the above grounds, the Detention Order 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:-4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 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.7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 2025allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in C3/D.O./63/2025 dated 04.05.2025, is hereby set aside. The detenue, viz., Ramesh, S/o.Thangavel, aged 40 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.(J.N.B.J.,) (S.S,J.,) 17.09.2025Index: Yes / NoInternet: Yes / Noar6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 2025To:1.The Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.3.The Superintendent of Police,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Cuddalore.4.The Inspector of Police,Muthandikuppam Police Station,Cuddalore District.6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1385 of 2025J.NISHA BANU, J.ANDS.SOUNTHAR , J. arH.C.P.No.1385 of 202517.09.20258/8