[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Lalitha vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 13 December, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.3084 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.12.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
H.C.P.No.3084 of 2024
LALITHA ... Petitioner/grandmother of the detenu
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary To Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2.The Commissioner Of Police,
Avadi City
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai -66
4.The Inspector Of Police,
(law And Order)
E-5 Sholavaram Police Station, Chennai.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition 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 second respondent dated 27.09.2024
in Memo No.167/BCDFGISSSV/2024 against the petitioner's Grand Son
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:45 pm )
HCP.No.3084 of 2024
namely Sureshkumar @ Kuthirai Suresh, Male aged 26 years,
S/o.Saravanan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and
set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue
before the Honble Court and set him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the grandmother of the detenu viz.,
Sureshkumar @ Kuthirai Suresh, Male aged 26 years, S/o.Saravanan, has
come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by
the second respondent dated 27.09.2024, slapped on her grandson,
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:45 pm )
[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 161 Cr.P.C., said to have been
made by the detenu's relative before the Sponsoring Authority, is not
dated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide
doubt as to when this statement was obtained from the petitioner's
relative. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the statement
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:45 pm )
4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the
Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relative, enclosed in the Booklet,
stating that they are planning to file a bail application to bring out the
detenu on bail, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it
is seen that, in Para No.4, 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 statement 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 is not dated, the veracity of
such statement becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the
detenu would also depend on when the statement was 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:45 pm )
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:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:45 pm )
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.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent on 27.09.2024 in Memo
No.167/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:45 pm )
Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sureshkumar @ Kuthirai Suresh,
Male aged 26 years, S/o.Saravanan, 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]
13.12.2025
(3/4)
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
Note :- Registry shall forthwith return the booklet
containing the materials, on which, the
Detaining Authority has placed reliance,
to the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner
with due acknowledgment.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Anu
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:45 pm )
1. The Principal Secretary To Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2.The Commissioner Of Police,
Avadi City
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai -66
4.The Inspector Of Police,
(law And Order)
E-5 Sholavaram Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
13.12.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:45 pm )
