High Court · 2025

HCP.No.1594 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 29.08.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No.1594 of 2025Ramesh ... PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by - Additional Chief Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-600 0092.The District Magistrate and District CollectorTiruppur District Tiruppur3.The Superintendent of PoliceTiruppur District Tiruppur4.The Superintendent Central Prison Coimbatore 641 0185.The Inspector of PoliceAvinashi Police StationTirupur District ... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent herein pertaining to the detention order passed against the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.11/GOONDA/2025 dated 14.03.2025 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to produce the petitioner, the detenu, Ramesh, S/o.Gurusamy, aged about 43 years, before this Court, now detained in the Central Prison, Coimbatore 641018, and thereby set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.P.M.DuraiswamyFor Respondents: Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M.Arifa Thasneem Advocate ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.The petitioner herein is the detenu viz. Ramesh, aged about 43 years, S/o.Gurusamy, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 14.03.2025, slapped on him, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025Goondas, 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 statement under 161 Cr.P.C., said to have been made by the detenu's relative before the Sponsoring Authority is not discussed in the grounds of detention. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the statement relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority is discussed before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority would vitiate the Detention Order. 4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relative is not enclosed in the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025Booklet, which would indicate that the relatives of the detenu are planning to file a bail application to bring out the detenu on bail. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, there is a discussion by the detaining authority in paragraphs Nos.5 and 7 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, but the statement U/s. 161 has not been enclosed in the booklet to bring out the detenu on bail. Hence, the veracity of such statement becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on the documents enclosed as discussed in the grounds of detention. In the absence of the important material, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspicious. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority without enclosing such material, 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025is 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025in 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 14.03.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.11/GOONDA/ 2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Ramesh, aged about 43 years, S/o.Gurusamy, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025 [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 29.08.2025kasIndex: Yes/NoNeutral CitationSpeaking / Non SpeakingTo.1.The Additional Chief Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-600 0092.The District Magistrate and District CollectorTiruppur District Tiruppur3.The Superintendent of PoliceTiruppur District Tiruppur4.The Superintendent Central Prison Coimbatore 641 018Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.kas5.The Inspector of PoliceAvinashi Police StationTirupur District6.The Public ProsecutorHigh Court of MadrasChennai 600 104H.C.P.No.1594 of 202529.08.2025Page 8 of 8

HCP.No.1594 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 29.08.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No.1594 of 2025Ramesh ... PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by - Additional Chief Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-600 0092.The District Magistrate and District CollectorTiruppur District Tiruppur3.The Superintendent of PoliceTiruppur District Tiruppur4.The Superintendent Central Prison Coimbatore 641 0185.The Inspector of PoliceAvinashi Police StationTirupur District ... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent herein pertaining to the detention order passed against the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.11/GOONDA/2025 dated 14.03.2025 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to produce the petitioner, the detenu, Ramesh, S/o.Gurusamy, aged about 43 years, before this Court, now detained in the Central Prison, Coimbatore 641018, and thereby set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.P.M.DuraiswamyFor Respondents: Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M.Arifa Thasneem Advocate ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.The petitioner herein is the detenu viz. Ramesh, aged about 43 years, S/o.Gurusamy, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 14.03.2025, slapped on him, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025Goondas, 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 statement under 161 Cr.P.C., said to have been made by the detenu's relative before the Sponsoring Authority is not discussed in the grounds of detention. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the statement relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority is discussed before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority would vitiate the Detention Order. 4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relative is not enclosed in the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025Booklet, which would indicate that the relatives of the detenu are planning to file a bail application to bring out the detenu on bail. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, there is a discussion by the detaining authority in paragraphs Nos.5 and 7 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, but the statement U/s. 161 has not been enclosed in the booklet to bring out the detenu on bail. Hence, the veracity of such statement becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on the documents enclosed as discussed in the grounds of detention. In the absence of the important material, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspicious. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority without enclosing such material, 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025is 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025in 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 14.03.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.11/GOONDA/ 2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Ramesh, aged about 43 years, S/o.Gurusamy, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025 [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 29.08.2025kasIndex: Yes/NoNeutral CitationSpeaking / Non SpeakingTo.1.The Additional Chief Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-600 0092.The District Magistrate and District CollectorTiruppur District Tiruppur3.The Superintendent of PoliceTiruppur District Tiruppur4.The Superintendent Central Prison Coimbatore 641 018Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1594 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.kas5.The Inspector of PoliceAvinashi Police StationTirupur District6.The Public ProsecutorHigh Court of MadrasChennai 600 104H.C.P.No.1594 of 202529.08.2025Page 8 of 8