High Court · 2025

HCP No. 1569 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 08-10-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARH.C.P No. 1569 of 20251. VanithaW/o.Manikandan, No.11, Model Line 1st Street, Cemetery Road, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021.Petitioner(s)Vs1. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner Of Police,Greater, Chennai Police Commissioner, The Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai-7.3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1569 of 20254.The Inspector Of Police,H1, Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai.Respondent(s)PRAYERTo issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ of direction calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.318/BCDFGISSSV/2025, dated 04.06.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the TamilNadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioners husband Manikandan, S/o.Dhanapal, the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Honble Court and set the petitioners husband Manikandan, S/o.Dhanapal, aged about 35 years the detenue herein at liberty.For Petitioner(s):Mr. N.NareshFor Respondent(s):Mr.A.GokulakrishnanAdditional Public ProsecutorORDERJ. NISHA BANU, J.andS. SOUNTHAR, J.The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, viz., Manikandan, aged 35 years, S/o. Dhanapal, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.318/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 04.06.2025, slapped on her husband, branding the detenue 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1569 of 2025Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].2. 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 the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.5272 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 is not similar to the case on hand. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly state that the similar case relied upon by the detaining authority is not a similar one.5. It is seen from the records that in Page No.121 of Volume-II of the booklet, this Court finds that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, in Crl.M.P.No.5272 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 is not similar to the case on hand. The bail was granted to the accused therein on the ground that the charge sheet has not been filed within a period of 60 days and hence, the accused was entitled to the mandatory bail. However, it is not so in the case on hand. Hence, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1569 of 2025this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail, by relying upon the aforesaid similar case, suffers from non-application of mind.6. 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 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1569 of 2025A 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.”7. 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.8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 04.06.2025 in No.318/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Manikandan, S/o.Dhanapal, aged 35 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. (J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)08-10-2025ASI https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1569 of 2025To1.The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner Of Police,Greater, Chennai Police Commissioner, The Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai-7.3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.4.The Inspector Of Police,H1, Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai.5. The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1569 of 2025J.NISHA BANU J.ANDS.SOUNTHAR J.ASIH.C.P No. 1569 of 2025 08-10-2025