CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANHCP No

HCP.No.3156 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANHCP No. 3156 of 2024AmuthavalliW/o.Siva alias Rakki Siva,Nainar Colony, Veeravanallur,Cheranmahadevi Taluk,Tirunelveli.PetitionerVs1. The Secretary to Government,Public (law And Order-F) Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.3.The Secretary to the Government,Government Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, (Department of Internal Security), Hal No.10, 2nd Floor, Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024Major Dyanchand National Stadium, New Delhi-110001.4.The Superintendent of PrisonCuddalore Central Prison, Cuddalore.5.The Superintendent Of PoliceOffice of The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.6.The Inspector of PoliceTaluk Police Station, Tirunelveli District.RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in N.S.A.No.03/2024 dated 16.11.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Siva @ Rakki Siva, S/o.Velmurugan aged about 28 years, now confirming at Cuddalore Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner: Dr.R.AlagumaniFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor for R1, R2, R4 to R6 Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan for R3 ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, Siva @ Rakki Siva, aged 28 years, confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 16.11.2024 to prevent him from acting in prejudicial to the security of the public order under Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act, 65 of 1980) read with orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.716, Public (Law & Order-F) Department, dated 19.10.2024 under Sub Section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out 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. It is his submission that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the present case, as the bail Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024was granted to the accused therein on the ground that the co-accused had been granted bail. 4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-II, this Court finds that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19503 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail on the ground that the co-accused had been granted bail. Therefore, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is irrational and the detention order is liable to quashed on the ground of 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 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024relevant to extract paragraphs 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024sustained.”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 16.11.2024 in N.S.A.No.03/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Siva @ Rakki Siva, aged 28 years, confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. No costs. [M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 13.08.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NovumTo1. The Secretary to Government,Public (law And Order-F) Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024Chennai-600 009.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.3.The Secretary to the Government,Government Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, (Department of Internal Security), Hal No.10, 2nd Floor, Major Dyanchand National Stadium, New Delhi-110001.4.The Superintendent of PrisonCuddalore Central Prison, Cuddalore.5.The Superintendent Of PoliceOffice of The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.6.The Inspector of PoliceTaluk Police Station, Tirunelveli District.7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. vumPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024HCP No. 3156 of 202413.08.2025(2/7)Page 8 of 8

HCP.No.3156 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANHCP No. 3156 of 2024AmuthavalliW/o.Siva alias Rakki Siva,Nainar Colony, Veeravanallur,Cheranmahadevi Taluk,Tirunelveli.PetitionerVs1. The Secretary to Government,Public (law And Order-F) Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.3.The Secretary to the Government,Government Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, (Department of Internal Security), Hal No.10, 2nd Floor, Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024Major Dyanchand National Stadium, New Delhi-110001.4.The Superintendent of PrisonCuddalore Central Prison, Cuddalore.5.The Superintendent Of PoliceOffice of The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.6.The Inspector of PoliceTaluk Police Station, Tirunelveli District.RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in N.S.A.No.03/2024 dated 16.11.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Siva @ Rakki Siva, S/o.Velmurugan aged about 28 years, now confirming at Cuddalore Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner: Dr.R.AlagumaniFor Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor for R1, R2, R4 to R6 Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan for R3 ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, Siva @ Rakki Siva, aged 28 years, confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 16.11.2024 to prevent him from acting in prejudicial to the security of the public order under Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act, 65 of 1980) read with orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.716, Public (Law & Order-F) Department, dated 19.10.2024 under Sub Section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out 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. It is his submission that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the present case, as the bail Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024was granted to the accused therein on the ground that the co-accused had been granted bail. 4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-II, this Court finds that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19503 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail on the ground that the co-accused had been granted bail. Therefore, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is irrational and the detention order is liable to quashed on the ground of 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 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024relevant to extract paragraphs 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024sustained.”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 16.11.2024 in N.S.A.No.03/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Siva @ Rakki Siva, aged 28 years, confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. No costs. [M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 13.08.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NovumTo1. The Secretary to Government,Public (law And Order-F) Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024Chennai-600 009.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.3.The Secretary to the Government,Government Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, (Department of Internal Security), Hal No.10, 2nd Floor, Major Dyanchand National Stadium, New Delhi-110001.4.The Superintendent of PrisonCuddalore Central Prison, Cuddalore.5.The Superintendent Of PoliceOffice of The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.6.The Inspector of PoliceTaluk Police Station, Tirunelveli District.7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. vumPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.3156 of 2024HCP No. 3156 of 202413.08.2025(2/7)Page 8 of 8