Madras High Court
Uthaya Melkias vs The Additional Chief Secretary To on 13 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.362 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.362 of 2025
Uthaya Melkias ... Petitioner/wife of the detenu
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary To
Government
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat, Chennai-
600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai, Office Of
Commissioner Of Police (Goondas
Section), Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai-
600 066.
4.The Inspector Of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Adyar Unit, Chennai-600 020.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
HCP.No.362 of 2025
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in Memo
No.75/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 10.02.2025 quash the same and direct
the respondents to produce the detenu, Naveen Baigg, confined at Central
prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai before this court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anoj Elangovan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz., Naveen
Baigg, confined at Central prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward
with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 10.02.2025, slapped on her husband, branding him as
"Drug Offender" 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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
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 Special Report filed by the Investigating
Officer is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel raised a bona fide doubt
as to when the Special Report was sent by the Sponsoring Authority to
the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel further pointed out that,
unless the Special Report of 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
document, would vitiate the Detention Order.
4. It is seen from the records that the Special Report of the
Sponsoring Authority in page No.136 is not dated. When the Special
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
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: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second
respondent on 10.02.2025 in Memo No.75/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz., Naveen Baigg, confined at Central prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection
with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J]
13.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary To
Government
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat, Chennai-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai, Office Of
Commissioner Of Police (Goondas
Section), Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai-
600 066.
4.The Inspector Of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Adyar Unit, Chennai-600 020.
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Anu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
13.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 04:20:07 pm )
