Karbagavalli vs The Secretary To The Government
2025 Latest Caselaw 5798 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5798 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2025

Madras High Court

Karbagavalli vs The Secretary To The Government on 7 April, 2025

Author: M.S.Ramesh

Bench: M.S. Ramesh

HCP.No.212 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.04.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

H.C.P.No.212 of 2025

KARBAGAVALLI
W/o.Pandiyarajan, No.7/21,
Kadhiravan Compound, Selvapuram 2nd Street,
Uthukuli Main Road, Mannarai, Tiruppur District.
... Petitioner/
Wife of the detenue

Vs.

1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.

3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.

4. The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Tiruppur North Police Station,
Tiruppur District. ... Respondents

Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:09 pm )
HCP.No.212 of 2025

PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in
Connection with the order of Detention passed by the 2nd Respondent
dated 30.12.2024 in C.No.107/G/IS/TIRUPPUR CITY/2024 against the
the petitioner son PANDIYARAJAN M/29 YEARS, SON OF
GOVINDARAJAN, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, and
set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to produce the
detenue before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz.,

Pandiyarajan S/o.Govindarajan, aged about 29 years detained in Central

Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the

detention order passed by the second respondent dated 30.12.2024,

slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:09 pm )

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. 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 Report filed by the Investigating Officer is not dated. Hence,

the learned counsel raised a bona fide doubt as to when the Report was

sent by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority. Hence, the

subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on this undated

document, would vitiate the Detention Order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:09 pm )

4. It is seen from the records that the Report of the Sponsoring

Authority in page No.106 of Volume-I is not dated. When the Report of the

Sponsoring Authority is not dated, the veracity of the Report becomes

doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also

depend on when the Sponsoring Authority has sent his Report. In the

absence of the report, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect.

Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at

by the Detaining Authority based on such undated materials, 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:09 pm )

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.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 01:10:09 pm )

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 30.12.2024 in C.No.107/G/IS/TIRUPPUR CITY/2024, is hereby set

aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,

Pandiyarajan S/o.Govindarajan, aged about 29 years detained in Central

Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is

required in connection with any other case.

(M.S.RAMESH J.)(N.SENTHILKUMAR J.) 07-04-2025