Madras High Court
Mahalakshmi vs The Secretary To Government on 16 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.517 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.517 of 2025
MAHALAKSHMI ... Petitioner/mother of the detenu
Vs.
1. The Secretary To Government,
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police,
Tambaram City.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-
600 066.
4.The Inspector Of Police,
T-18, Thazhambur 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 BCDFGISSSV
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:05 pm )
HCP.No.517 of 2025
No.5/2025 dated 10.02.2025 on the file of the Commissioner of Police,
Tambaram City, the second respondent herein and quash the same as
illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenue R.Stephen
Kumar @ Stephen, S/o.Rajavel, aged about 26 years, before this Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabhakar
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.,
R.Stephen Kumar @ Stephen, S/o.Rajavel, aged about 26 years, has
come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed
by the second respondent dated 10.02.2025, issued against her son,
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: 20/06/2025 05:56:05 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:05 pm )
Sponsoring Authority in page No.173 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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:05 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:05 pm )
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 10.02.2025 in BCDFGISSSV No.5/2025, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
R.Stephen Kumar @ Stephen, S/o.Rajavel, aged about 26 years,, 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
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:05 pm )
1. The Secretary To Government,
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police,
Tambaram City.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-
600 066.
4.The Inspector Of Police,
T-18, Thazhambur 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 05:56:05 pm )
Anu
16.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 05:56:05 pm )
