High Court · 2025

H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14.02.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMARH.C.P.No.3025 of 2024Jayalakshmi... PetitionerVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by,Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition & Excise Department.2.District Collector and District Magistrate,Kanchipuram.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Vellore.4.The Superintendent of Police,Kancheepuram District.5.The Inspector of Police,B2 – Vishnu Kanchi Police Station,Incharge Kanchi Taluk Police Station,Kanchipuram.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in detention order Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024passed in Rc.No.422/2024/M6-D.O.No.60/2024 dated 18.10.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu i.e., the son of the petitioner Rajesh, S/o.Muniyan, Male, aged about 32 years, the detenu detained under Act 14 of 1982 in detention order Rc.No.422/2024/M6-D.O.No.60/2024 dated 18.10.2024 herein now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.V.PurshothamanFor Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester JohnORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J.)The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Rajesh, aged about 32 years, S/o.Muniyan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.10.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Sexual 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].Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 20242. 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 there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the statement under 180(3) BNSS, is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to when this statement was obtained. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the statement relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detaining Authority, 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. It is seen from records that the statement made under 180(3) of BNSS, obtained by the Sponsoring Authority, enclosed in the Booklet, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that, in Para Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024No.5, the Detaining Authority has observed that the mother of the detenu has given a statement before the Police that due to family circumstances, she is not in a position to file a bail petition, however, she will file the same in due course of time 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 mother of the detenu 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 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.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 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024satisfaction 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024possibility 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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 18.10.2024 in Rc.No.422/2024/M6-D.O.No.60/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Rajesh, aged about 32 years, S/o.Muniyan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.] 14.02.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSniPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024To1.The Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition & Excise Department.2.District Collector and District Magistrate,Kanchipuram.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Vellore.4.The Superintendent of Police,Kancheepuram District.5.The Inspector of Police,B2 – Vishnu Kanchi Police Station,Incharge Kanchi Taluk Police Station,Kanchipuram.6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andN. SENTHILKUMAR, J.SniH.C.P.No.3025 of 202414.02.2025Page 8 of 8

H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14.02.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMARH.C.P.No.3025 of 2024Jayalakshmi... PetitionerVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by,Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition & Excise Department.2.District Collector and District Magistrate,Kanchipuram.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Vellore.4.The Superintendent of Police,Kancheepuram District.5.The Inspector of Police,B2 – Vishnu Kanchi Police Station,Incharge Kanchi Taluk Police Station,Kanchipuram.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in detention order Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024passed in Rc.No.422/2024/M6-D.O.No.60/2024 dated 18.10.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu i.e., the son of the petitioner Rajesh, S/o.Muniyan, Male, aged about 32 years, the detenu detained under Act 14 of 1982 in detention order Rc.No.422/2024/M6-D.O.No.60/2024 dated 18.10.2024 herein now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.V.PurshothamanFor Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester JohnORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J.)The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Rajesh, aged about 32 years, S/o.Muniyan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.10.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Sexual 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].Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 20242. 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 there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the statement under 180(3) BNSS, is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to when this statement was obtained. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the statement relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detaining Authority, 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. It is seen from records that the statement made under 180(3) of BNSS, obtained by the Sponsoring Authority, enclosed in the Booklet, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that, in Para Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024No.5, the Detaining Authority has observed that the mother of the detenu has given a statement before the Police that due to family circumstances, she is not in a position to file a bail petition, however, she will file the same in due course of time 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 mother of the detenu 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 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.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 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024satisfaction 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024possibility 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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 18.10.2024 in Rc.No.422/2024/M6-D.O.No.60/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Rajesh, aged about 32 years, S/o.Muniyan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.] 14.02.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSniPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024To1.The Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition & Excise Department.2.District Collector and District Magistrate,Kanchipuram.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Vellore.4.The Superintendent of Police,Kancheepuram District.5.The Inspector of Police,B2 – Vishnu Kanchi Police Station,Incharge Kanchi Taluk Police Station,Kanchipuram.6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3025 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andN. SENTHILKUMAR, J.SniH.C.P.No.3025 of 202414.02.2025Page 8 of 8