High Court · 2025

H.C.P.No.1437 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.09.2025C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARH.C.P.No.1437 of 2025Sandhiya... Petitioner/Wife of the detenue-vs-1.State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,The greater Chennai City,Vepery, Chennai-600 007.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai-600 066.4.The Inspector of Police,G-1, Vepery 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 relating to the detention order in Memo No.281/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 28.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's Husband 1/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1437 of 2025Prithviraj @ Iman, S/o.Panneerselvam, aged about 27 years the detenue as Goonda now he is confined in Central Prison Puzal Chennai before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.C.JaganFor 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 detenue, namely Prithviraj @ Iman, S/o.Panneerselvam, aged about 27 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order dated 28.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in Memo No.281/BCDFGISSSV/2025, branding him as a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2 (e) 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 2/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1437 of 2025Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. 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 detenue coming out on bail, by relying upon the bail order dated 23.01.2024, granted to the accused in a similar case in Crl.M.P.No.10224 of 2023, suffers from non-application of mind. 4. In paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that there is a possibility of the detenue 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 Special Judge for EC and NDPS Act, Chennai in Crime No.235 of 2023 on the file of P1, Chintadaripet Police Station. On a perusal of the said order in Page No.35 of the Booklet (Vol.II), this Court finds that the bail was granted to the accused therein on the ground that there was no previous 3/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1437 of 2025against the said accused, whereas it is stated that the detenue herein has a previous case and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, regarding the possibility of the detenue 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 detenue 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 detenue 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 4/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1437 of 2025said 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 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 5/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1437 of 2025order is liable to be quashed.7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the SECOND RESPONDENT in MEMO NO.281/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 28.05.2025, is hereby set aside. The detenue, viz., PRITHVIRAJ @ IMAN, S/o.Panneerselvam , aged 27 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 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.,) 24.09.2025Index: Yes / NoInternet: Yes / NoarTo:1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,6/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1437 of 2025State of Tamil Nadu,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,The greater Chennai City,Vepery, Chennai-600 007.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai-600 066.4.The Inspector of Police,G-1, Vepery Police Station,Chennai.6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.J.NISHA BANU, J.ANDS.SOUNTHAR , J. ar7/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1437 of 2025H.C.P.No.1437 of 202524.09.20258/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis