Madras High Court
Geetha vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 9 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.451 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.451 of 2025
Geetha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police Commissioner
The Commissioner Office
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police,
D2 Anna Salai Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison -II, (Men)
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:00:52 pm )
HCP.No.451 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the
detention order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the second respondent in
BCDFGISSSV / nO.1218/2024 and direct the respondents herein to
produce the body of the petitioner's son namely Devaraj @ Deva @
Psycodeva, son of Elumalai, aged 25 years, who is presently undergoing
detention in the Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and
set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Hussaini Basha
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz., Devaraj
@ Deva @ Psycho Deva, S/o.Elumalai, aged about 25 years, confined at
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
11.12.2024, slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:00:52 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:00:52 pm )
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:00:52 pm )
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:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:00:52 pm )
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: 13/06/2025 02:00:52 pm )
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent on 11.12.2024 in No.1218/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz., Devaraja @ Deva @ Psycho Deva, aged about 25 years,
S/o.Elumalai, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to
be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in
connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]
09.06.2024
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police Commissioner
The Commissioner Office
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:00:52 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
3.The Inspector of Police,
D2 Anna Salai Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison -II, (Men)
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
09.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 02:00:52 pm )
