High Court · 2025

H.C.P.No.1439 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-09-2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARH.C.P.No.1439 of 2025Divya BharathiW/o Vijayanarayanan... PetitionerVs.1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI)Department, Fort St.George, Chenni - 600 0092. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison at Puzhal, Thiruvallur, Chennai - 600 066.4. The Inspector of Police, G-1, Vepery Police Station, Chennai District.... RespondentsPRAYER: The 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 records relating to the detention order in No.409/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 27.06.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the husband of the petitioner/ detenu Mr.Vijayanarayanan, S/o Natarajan, aged 35 years, Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1439 of 2025now confined in Central Prison at Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mrs.R.Subadra DeviFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERJ.Nisha Banu,J.andS.Sounthar,JThe petitioner is the wife of the detenu, viz., Vijayanarayanan, S/o Natarajan, aged 35 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.409/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 27.06.2025, 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] read with the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.97 Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1439 of 2025and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the case on hand, by referring to the fact that bail was granted to the accused therein mainly on the ground that victim died, due to fatal push by accused during quarrel. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail. 4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that, in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, i.e.,Crl.O.P.No.30749 of 2024, dated 10.12.2024, the accused therein was granted bail mainly by taking note of the fact, victim died due to fatal push by accused therein due to quarrel. In the case on hand, the accused alleged to have attacked victim due to prior enmity. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1439 of 2025likely to be released on bail, by relying upon the aforesaid similar case, 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:-“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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1439 of 2025the 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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 27.06.2025 in Memo No.409/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1439 of 2025viz., Vijayanarayanan, aged 35 years, S/o.Natarajan, detained 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.)12-09-2025VsiTo1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI)Department, Fort St.George, Chenni - 600 0092. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1439 of 20253. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison at Puzhal, Thiruvallur, Chennai - 600 066.4. The Inspector of Police, G-1, Vepery Police Station, Chennai District.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1439 of 2025J. NISHA BANU, J.andS. SOUNTHAR, J.vsi H.C.P.No.1439 of 202512-09-2025Page 8 of 8