Madras High Court
Bhuvaneswari vs State Rep By on 16 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.538 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.538 of 2025
BHUVANESWARI
Petitioner(s)/ sister of the detenue
Vs
1. State Rep By, The Additional
Chief Secretary To Government
Home Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat, Government
Of Tamil Nadu, Fort St George,
Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai
4.The Inspector Of Police
S 4, Nanthambakkam Police Station,
Chennai
...Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm )
HCP.No.538 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 of pertaining to the
order of detention dated on 10.02.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in NO.
73/BCDFGISSV/2025 and quash the same as illegal and direct the
respondent to produce the detenue Thiru. Karthikeyan @ Pappu S/O.
Kuppan, aged about 26 years, now confined at Central Prison -II, Puzhal,
Chennai before this court and set him at liberty
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the sister of the detenu, Karthikeyan @
Pappu S/O. Kuppan, aged about 26 years, now 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 issued
against her brother, 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm )
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 and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Detaining Authority has not
applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction that the detenu
is also likely to be released on bail. It is his submission that the case relied
upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the present case, as in that
case, bail was granted by this Court considering the facts, particularly that
the offence was committed due to sudden provocation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-II, this Court finds that the
bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.O.P.No.30749 of
2024 dated 10.12.2024, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused
therein was granted bail by this Court considering the facts, particularly that
the offence was committed due to sudden provocation. Therefore, this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm )
finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is irrational
and the detention order is liable to quashed on the ground of 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 paragraphs 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm )
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.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm )
second respondent on 10.02.2025 in NO. 73/BCDFGISSV/2025, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Karthikeyan @ Pappu S/O. Kuppan, aged about 26 years, now 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]
16.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary To
Government
Home Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat, Government
Of Tamil Nadu, Fort St George,
Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai
4.The Inspector Of Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm )
S 4, Nanthambakkam Police Station,
Chennai
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm )
Anu
16.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:00:33 pm )
