THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No

HCP.No.1453 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 21.08.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.1453 of 2025S.KrishnakumarPetitioner(s) /friend of the detenueVs1. The Additional Chief Secretary To The Government,Government of Tamil Nadu, (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner Of Police,Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai-600 007.3.The Superintendent Of Prison,Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.4.The Inspector Of Police,H-1, Wahermenpet Police Station, Chennai. Respondent(s) Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1453 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the order of the 2nd respondent herein in, Memo No.142/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 07.03.2025 passed against the petitioner's friend of the detenu namely Thiru.Austin Eban Inbaraj, son of Thangaraj, aged about 65 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 and set aside the same, consequently, directing the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Ms.R.SarithaFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the friend of the detenu, Austin Eban Inbaraj, son of Thangaraj, aged about 65 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 07.03.2025 issued against his friend, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1453 of 2025Prevention 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, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the statements under 180(iii) of B.N.S.S, said to have been made by the detenu's relatives before the Sponsoring Authority, is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to when this statement was obtained from the detenue's relatives. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the statement relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1453 of 2025based on this undated statement, would vitiate the Detention Order. 4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relatives, enclosed in the Booklet in Volume-I in Page No.91, stating that they are planning to file a bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining Authority has observed that the Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to understand that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail application before the appropriate Court and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. When the statements obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu stating that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, are not dated, the veracity of such statements becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the statements were obtained. In the absence of the date, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspicious. 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.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1453 of 20255. 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 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1453 of 2025petitioner, 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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 07.03.2025 in Memo No.142/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Austin Eban Inbaraj, son of Thangaraj, aged about 65 years, confined at Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1453 of 2025Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066, 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] 21.08.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuTo1. The Additional Chief Secretary To The Government,Government of Tamil Nadu, (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner Of Police,Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai-600 007.M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. 3.The Superintendent Of Prison,Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1453 of 20254.The Inspector Of Police,H-1, Washermanpet Police Station, Chennai.5.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.H.C.P.No.1453 of 202521.08.2025Page 8 of 8