Madras High Court
Rani … vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.443 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 17.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.443 of 2025
Rani … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore
3.The Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Cuddalore
Cuddalore District
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 04:05:24 pm )
H.C.P.No.443 of 2025
5.The Inspector of Police
Pennadam Police Station
Thittagudi Tk. Cuddalore District … Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the entire records in
C3/D.O./17/2025 dated 11.02.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and
quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to
produce the petitioner's son Deepak Selvam, aged about 24 years,
S/o.Periyasmy who detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court
and set him at liberty.
For petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam
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. Deepak
Selvam, aged about 24 years, S/o.Periyasami, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 11.02.2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 04:05:24 pm )
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 the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority that the detenu is likely to come out on bail suffers from
non application of mind, as the similar case relied upon by the detaining
authority is not similar.
4. It is seen from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority
has relied upon the bail order passed the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District, dated 20.10.2023, in Crl.M.P.No.7650
of 2023, in Crime No.294 of 2023, for an accused in the said case. On a
perusal of the said order, we find that in the similar case bail was granted to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 04:05:24 pm )
the accused recording there is no previous case, whereas, in the present
case, the accused bail petition was dismissed on the ground that Goondas
proposal is pending. Therefore, the said case cannot be said to be similar.
Hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the
possibility of the detenu is likely to come out on bail 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 04:05:24 pm )
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 effect. Hence, the
detention order in question cannot be sustained.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 04:05:24 pm )
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
in No.C3/D.O./17/2025 dated 11.02.2025, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Deepak Selvam, Male,
aged about 24 years, S/o.Periyasami, presently detained at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, 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.]
17.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 04:05:24 pm )
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore
3.The Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Cuddalore
Cuddalore District
5.The Inspector of Police
Pennadam Police Station
Thittagudi Tk. Cuddalore District
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 04:05:24 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
17.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 04:05:24 pm )
