High Court · 2025

H.C.P.No.1445 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26-09-2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARH.C.P.No.1445 of 2025AmudhaW/o Murugan..PetitionerVs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai- 600 0073. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.4. The Inspector of Police, R-3, Ashok Nagar 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 the records relating to the detention order in BCDFGISSV No.429/2025 dated 01.07.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 2025Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, Selvaraj, aged 26 years, S/o Murugan, who is presently confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.SanthoshFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERJ.Nisha Banu,J.andS.Sounthar,JThe petitioner is the mother of the detenu, viz., Selvaraj, aged 26 years, S/o Murugan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSV No.429/2025 dated 01.07.2025, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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.Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 20252. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and 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 this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the statement of the relative of the detenu furnished to the detenu is not dated. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation and it would vitiate the detention order.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly submit that there is no date in the statement obtained from the relative of the detenue.5.It is seen from records that at Vol-I page 122, there is no date in the statement of the relative furnished to the detenu. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the special report was obtained. In the absence of the date, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on such undated material, suffers from non-application of mind.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Rekha Vs. State of Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 2025Tamil 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 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 Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 2025alleged 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.”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 Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.429/2025 dated 01.07.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz.,Selvaraj, aged 26 years, S/o Murugan, 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.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)vsi26.09.2025ToPage 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 20251. The Principal Secretary, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai- 600 0073. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.4. The Inspector of Police, R-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Chennai District.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,ChennaiPage 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 2025J. NISHA BANU, J.andS. SOUNTHAR, J.vsi H.C.P.No.1445 of 202526-09-2025Page 7 of 7

H.C.P.No.1445 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26-09-2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARH.C.P.No.1445 of 2025AmudhaW/o Murugan..PetitionerVs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai- 600 0073. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.4. The Inspector of Police, R-3, Ashok Nagar 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 the records relating to the detention order in BCDFGISSV No.429/2025 dated 01.07.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 2025Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, Selvaraj, aged 26 years, S/o Murugan, who is presently confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.SanthoshFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERJ.Nisha Banu,J.andS.Sounthar,JThe petitioner is the mother of the detenu, viz., Selvaraj, aged 26 years, S/o Murugan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSV No.429/2025 dated 01.07.2025, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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.Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 20252. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and 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 this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the statement of the relative of the detenu furnished to the detenu is not dated. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation and it would vitiate the detention order.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly submit that there is no date in the statement obtained from the relative of the detenue.5.It is seen from records that at Vol-I page 122, there is no date in the statement of the relative furnished to the detenu. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the special report was obtained. In the absence of the date, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on such undated material, suffers from non-application of mind.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Rekha Vs. State of Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 2025Tamil 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 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 Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 2025alleged 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.”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 Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.429/2025 dated 01.07.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz.,Selvaraj, aged 26 years, S/o Murugan, 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.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)vsi26.09.2025ToPage 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 20251. The Principal Secretary, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai- 600 0073. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.4. The Inspector of Police, R-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Chennai District.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,ChennaiPage 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1445 of 2025J. NISHA BANU, J.andS. SOUNTHAR, J.vsi H.C.P.No.1445 of 202526-09-2025Page 7 of 7