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

HCP.No.1498 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANHCP No. 1498 of 2025KuyilammaW/o.Muniyan, No.55, South Street, Siruvambar Village, T.Mavidandal, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.PetitionerVs1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Cuddalore.4.The Superintendent of Police,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 20255.The Inspector of Police,All Women Police station, Virudhachalam.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 C3/D.O/25/2025, dated 11.03.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent under the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Chandrakasu, S/o.Muniyan aged about 39 years, the detenue now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set aside the petitioner's son Chandrakasu S/o.Muniyan aged about 39 years the detenue herein at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.P.Roshan KumarFor 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, Chandrakasu, Male aged 39 years, S/o. Muniyan, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 11.03.2025 issued against her son, branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 2025Offenders, 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.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.1037 of 2022, dated 28.6.2022, bail was granted to the accused therein. On a perusal of the said order, in page No.52 of the Booklet, this Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 2025Court 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 90 days and not on merits. Therefore, it is not a similar case and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, regarding 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 2025respondent 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.”Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 20256. 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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 11.03.2025 in No.C3/D.O/25/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Chandrakasu, Male aged 39 years, S/o. Muniyan, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, 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.1498 of 2025To1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Cuddalore.4.The Superintendent of Police,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.5.The Inspector of Police,All Women Police station, Virudhachalam.6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. vumH.C.P.No. 1498 of 2025 13.08.2025Page 8 of 8

HCP.No.1498 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANHCP No. 1498 of 2025KuyilammaW/o.Muniyan, No.55, South Street, Siruvambar Village, T.Mavidandal, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.PetitionerVs1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Cuddalore.4.The Superintendent of Police,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 20255.The Inspector of Police,All Women Police station, Virudhachalam.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 C3/D.O/25/2025, dated 11.03.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent under the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Chandrakasu, S/o.Muniyan aged about 39 years, the detenue now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set aside the petitioner's son Chandrakasu S/o.Muniyan aged about 39 years the detenue herein at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.P.Roshan KumarFor 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, Chandrakasu, Male aged 39 years, S/o. Muniyan, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 11.03.2025 issued against her son, branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 2025Offenders, 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.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.1037 of 2022, dated 28.6.2022, bail was granted to the accused therein. On a perusal of the said order, in page No.52 of the Booklet, this Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 2025Court 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 90 days and not on merits. Therefore, it is not a similar case and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, regarding 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 2025respondent 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.”Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 20256. 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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 11.03.2025 in No.C3/D.O/25/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Chandrakasu, Male aged 39 years, S/o. Muniyan, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, 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.1498 of 2025To1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Cuddalore.4.The Superintendent of Police,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.5.The Inspector of Police,All Women Police station, Virudhachalam.6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1498 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. vumH.C.P.No. 1498 of 2025 13.08.2025Page 8 of 8