High Court · 2025

HCP.No.1617 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED 29.10.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMANH.C.P.No.1617 of 2025Husna Noor ... Petitioner/Sister of the detenuVersus1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai – 600 0092. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Police Vepery, Chennai – 600 0073. The Superintendent of Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai – 600 0664. The Inspector of Police R-3, Ashok Nagar, Police Station Chennai .. RespondentsPrayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1617 of 2025connection with the order of Detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 01.07.2025 in No.428/BCFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner Brother N.Faisal Noor male aged about 30 years S/o. Noor Basha who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner:Mr.L.Poovendra PerumalFor Respondents:Mr.A.GokulakrishnanAdditional Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)The petitioner, who is the sister of the detenu N.Faisal Noor, S/o. Noor Basha, male, aged about 30 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 01.07.2025 bearing reference No.428/BCDFGISSSV/2025 slapped on her brother, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand 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.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1617 of 20253. 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 a relative of the detenu is taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the statement under 180 (iii) of BNSS, said to have been made by the detenu's father before the Sponsoring Authority, is undated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to when this statement was obtained from the detenu's father. 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 based on this undated statement, would vitiate the Detention Order.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not refuted the furnishing of undated 180(iii) statement to the detenu that was given by his father.5. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's father, enclosed in the Booklet at Pg.No.121 of Vol.I stating that he is planning to file a bail application to 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1617 of 2025bring out the detenu on bail, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that, in Para No.3, the Detaining Authority has observed that the Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to understand that the relative of the detenu is 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 statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the father of the detenu stating that he is planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail is not dated, the veracity of such statement becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the statement was 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.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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1617 of 2025passed 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 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.”5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1617 of 20257. 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. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 01.07.2025 in BCFGISSSV No.428/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz., N.Faisal Noor, male, aged about 30 years S/o. Noor Basha, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 29.10.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Nogpa6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1617 of 2025To1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai – 600 0092. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Police Vepery, Chennai – 600 0073. The Superintendent of Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai – 600 0664. The Inspector of Police R-3, Ashok Nagar, Police Station Chennai5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai – 96.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1617 of 2025N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,ANDM.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,gpaH.C.P.No.1617 of 202529.10.20258/8