Madras High Court

Sowmya.H vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2025

Author: M.S.Ramesh

Bench: M.S. Ramesh

                                                                                                HCP No. 2416 of 2024




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 03-06-2025

                                                         CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
                                            AND
                       THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                               HCP No. 2416 of 2024

                1. Sowmya.H
                D/o. K.Hariharan, Plot No.11-part, Sri
                Velmurugan Nagar, 2nd Main Road,
                Kolathur, Chennai - 600 099.
                                                                                       Petitioner

                                                              Vs
                1. State Of Tamil Nadu
                Rep.By Additional Chief Secretary,
                Home Prohibition And Excise Wing,
                Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

                2.Commissioner Of Police,
                Greater Chennai Police, Vepery,
                Chennai.

                3.Superintendent Central Prison,
                Puzhal-ii, Chennai.

                4.Inspector Of Police,
                Central Crime Branch, Edf-ii, Beta-5,
                Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
                                                                                       Respondents



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )
                                                                                             HCP No. 2416 of 2024



                PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue

                a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in

                688/ BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 19.06.2024 and quash the same and direct the

                respondents herein to produce the person and body of the detenue

                Thiru.Hariharan, son of Krishnamoorthi, Hindu, aged about 58 yrs who is now

                confined Central Prison, Puzhal-II, before this Court, and set him at liberty.


                                  For Petitioner          : Mr.Prakash Goklaney

                                  For Respondents         : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
                                                            Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                       ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.Ramesh J.)

The petitioner herein, who is the daughter of the detenu namely

Hariharan, aged about 58 years, S/o.Krishnamoorthy, has come forward with

this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent

dated 19.06.2024 issued against her father, 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 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )

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 petitioner/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 detenu's relative. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the

statement relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the

Detaining Authority, 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )

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.3,

the Detaining Authority has observed that the Sponsoring Authority has stated

that he came to know 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.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Rekha Vs. State of Tamil

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )

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 footing as that of the petitioner, then the petitioner is

ordinarily granted bail. However, the respondent authority

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )

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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on

19.06.2024 in No.688/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas

Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Hariharan, aged about 58 years,

S/o.Krishnamoorthy, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his

confinement is required in connection with any other case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )

(M.S.RAMESH J.) (V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.) 03-06-2025

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No

1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Prohibition And Excise Wing, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.