High Court · 2025

HCP No. 2155 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26-11-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMANHCP No. 2155 of 2025VijayaPetitioner(s)Vs1. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its, The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home,Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Magistrate And District Collector ,Namakkal District.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Salem.4.The Superintendent of Police,Namakkal District.5.The Sub-inspector of Police,Veppadai Police Station,Namakkal District.Respondent(s)PRAYERThis writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records pertaining to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in C.M.P.No.68/GOONDA/2025 (m1) dated 30.07.2025 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce Petitioner’s son, namely, Vinoth Kumar, S/o/Rajagopal, aged about 34 years, who is confined in Central Prison at Salem, before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2155 of 2025For Petitioner(s):Mr. M.Vijaya RagavanFor Respondent(s):Mr. A.Gokulakrishnan,Addl. Public ProsecutorORDER(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)The petitioner/ detenu viz., Vinothkumar, aged about 34 years, S/o.Rajagopal, confined at Central Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 30.07.2025 branding him as "Goonda" 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].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. 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2155 of 20253. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, the bail order in Crl.O.P.No.16640 of 2025 dated 13.06.2025, relied upon by the Detaining Authority 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 Nos.49 to 51 of Volume-II of the booklet, this Court finds that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, in Crl.O.P.No.16640 of 2025 dated 13.06.2025 is not similar to the case on hand and the bail was granted to the very same detenu on the ground that the bail was granted to the very same detenu, mainly on the ground that he has no previous case. Whereas, now the detenu has one previous case. Hence, there is no likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail immediately, by relying upon the aforesaid case, suffers from non-application of mind. Moreover the bail petition filed by the detenu was also dismissed, 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2155 of 20256. 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. 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.”4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2155 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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 30.07.2025 in CMP No.68/GOONDA/2025/(M1) is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vinothkumar, aged 34 years, S/o. Rajagopal, confined at Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. (N.SATHISH KUMAR J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)26-11-2025mrpTo1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, The State Of Tamil NaduHome Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Magistrate And District Collector ,Namakkal District.3.The Superintendent Of Prison,Central Prison, Salem.4.The Superintendent Of Police,Namakkal District.5.The Sub-inspector Of Police,Veppadai Police Station Namakkal District.5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2155 of 20256. The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras, Chennai. 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2155 of 2025N.SATHISH KUMAR J.ANDM.JOTHIRAMAN J.mrpHCP No. 2155 of 2025 26-11-20257 of 7