Madras High Court
Chandrasekar vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By on 1 April, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP No. 389 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
HCP No. 389 of 2025
1. CHANDRASEKAR
S/o.Gurusamy, No.79, Nethaji Nagar,
Padiyanallur Village, Ponneri Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By, The
Secretary,
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-
600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai, Office Of The
Commissioner Of Police (goondas
Section), Chennai.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
HCP No. 389 of 2025
4.The Inspector Of Police
P-5 Mkb Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a Habeas corpus to call for the
records relating to the detention order vide Memo No.954/BCDFGISSSV/2024
dated 13.09.2024, passed by the second respondent and quash the same and
direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioners friend namely
Muralikrishnan, aged about 40 years (who is presently under going detention in
the central prison, Puzhal, Chennai), before this Honble court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Rajadurai
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.Sylvester John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the Friend of the detenu, Muralikrishnan son
of Janakiraman, aged about 40 years, confined at Central prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the second respondent dated 13.09.2024 slapped on his son, branding
him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
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. 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 the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to
take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the
statement under 180 (iii) of B.N.S.S, said to have been made by the detenu's
relatives before the Sponsoring Authority, are not dated. Hence, the learned
counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to when this statement was
obtained from the detenue's relatives. The learned counsel further pointed out
that, unless the statements 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. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the Sponsoring
Authority from the detenu's relatives, enclosed in the Booklet, stating that they
are planning to file a bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the Detaining
Authority has observed that the Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to
understand that the relatives of the detenu are 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
statements obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the
detenu stating that they are planning to file bail application to bring out the
detenu on bail, are not dated, the veracity of such statements becomes doubtful.
The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the
statements were 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 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
“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.”
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 13.09.2024 in No.954/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Muralikrishnan son of Janakiraman, aged about 40 years, confined at Central
prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is
required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [N.S., J]
14.03.2025
ASI
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
To
1. The Secretary,
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-
600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai, Office Of The
Commissioner Of Police (goondas
Section), Chennai.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
District.
4.The Inspector Of Police
P-5 MKB Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
M.S.RAMESH J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR J.
ASI
01-04-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
