High Court · 2025

H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.02.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMARH.C.P.No.3293 of 2024Dhimmappan... PetitionerVs.1.The Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The District Magistrate/District Collector,The Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam,The Nilgiris.3.The Superintendent of Police,The Nilgiris, The Nilgiris District.4.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison – Coimbatore,Coimbatore District.5.State rep. by its,The Inspector of Police,Udhagamandalam Town, Central Police Station,The Nilgiris District.... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 31.08.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Cr.M.P.No:12/2024 (Sexual Offender), quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Sathishkumar, S/o.Dhimmappan, aged 25 years, before this Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.For Petitioner: M/s.W.Camyles GandhiFor 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 father of the detenu namely Sathishkumar, aged about 25 years, S/o.Dhimmappan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 31.08.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024Bootleggers, 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. 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 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 was granted in favour of the accused therein by recording the fact that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse and that the investigation is still pending. 4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that though the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in C.M.P.No.3961 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022, pertains to the offence committed under Sections Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024294(b),506(ii), 376 of IPC, the bail was granted to the accused therein after recording the fact that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse and that the investigation is still pending. Considering the nature of the bail order in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the case on hand, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail, 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 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 paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-“10.In our opinion, if details are given by the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024respondent 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.”Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 20246. 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 31.08.2024 in Cr.M.P.No:12/2024 (Sexual Offender), is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sathishkumar, aged about 25 years, S/o.Dhimmappan, 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.] 13.02.2025 Index: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSniPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024To1.The Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.2.The District Magistrate/District Collector,The Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam,The Nilgiris.3.The Superintendent of Police,The Nilgiris, The Nilgiris District.4.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison – Coimbatore,Coimbatore District.5.The Inspector of Police,Udhagamandalam Town, Central Police Station,The Nilgiris District.6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andN. SENTHILKUMAR, J.SniH.C.P.No.3293 of 202413.02.2025Page 8 of 8

H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.02.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMARH.C.P.No.3293 of 2024Dhimmappan... PetitionerVs.1.The Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The District Magistrate/District Collector,The Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam,The Nilgiris.3.The Superintendent of Police,The Nilgiris, The Nilgiris District.4.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison – Coimbatore,Coimbatore District.5.State rep. by its,The Inspector of Police,Udhagamandalam Town, Central Police Station,The Nilgiris District.... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 31.08.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Cr.M.P.No:12/2024 (Sexual Offender), quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Sathishkumar, S/o.Dhimmappan, aged 25 years, before this Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.For Petitioner: M/s.W.Camyles GandhiFor 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 father of the detenu namely Sathishkumar, aged about 25 years, S/o.Dhimmappan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 31.08.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024Bootleggers, 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. 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 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 was granted in favour of the accused therein by recording the fact that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse and that the investigation is still pending. 4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that though the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in C.M.P.No.3961 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022, pertains to the offence committed under Sections Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024294(b),506(ii), 376 of IPC, the bail was granted to the accused therein after recording the fact that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse and that the investigation is still pending. Considering the nature of the bail order in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the case on hand, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail, 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 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 paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-“10.In our opinion, if details are given by the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024respondent 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.”Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 20246. 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 31.08.2024 in Cr.M.P.No:12/2024 (Sexual Offender), is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sathishkumar, aged about 25 years, S/o.Dhimmappan, 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.] 13.02.2025 Index: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSniPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024To1.The Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.2.The District Magistrate/District Collector,The Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam,The Nilgiris.3.The Superintendent of Police,The Nilgiris, The Nilgiris District.4.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison – Coimbatore,Coimbatore District.5.The Inspector of Police,Udhagamandalam Town, Central Police Station,The Nilgiris District.6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.3293 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andN. SENTHILKUMAR, J.SniH.C.P.No.3293 of 202413.02.2025Page 8 of 8