Madras High Court
Baby vs The Additional Chief Secretary To on 17 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.562 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.562 of 2025
BABY
Petitioner(s)/ mother of the detenue
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary To
Government,
Home, Prohibition And Excise
Department, Secretariat, Chennai -
600 009.
2.The District Collector And District
Magistrate Of Cuddalore District
Cuddalore District.
3.The Superintendent Of Police,
Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison Cuddalore, Cuddalore
District - 4.
5.The Inspector Of Police
Thirupapuliyur Police Station,
Cuddalore.
...Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
HCP.No.562 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 in Connection with the
order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 12.02.2025 in
C3/D.O./18/2025 against the petitioner's son Kowsik, son of Sureshkumar,
aged about 19 years, confined at Central prison, Cuddalore and set aside the
same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and
set him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Siva Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, Kowsik, son
of Sureshkumar, aged about 19 years, confined at Central prison,
Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 12.02.2025 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
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 the bail
was granted in favour of the accused therein by recording the fact that the
there was no previous case as against the accused therein.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the bail order
relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.7650 of 2023 dated
20.10.2023, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was
granted bail after recording the fact that no previous case was reported
against the accused therein. However, it is admitted that there are eight
previous cases as against the detenu herein. Considering the nature of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
bail order in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the
case on hand, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the
Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released 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 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
is liable to be quashed.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 12.02.2025 in C3/D.O./18/2025, is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Kowsik, son of
Sureshkumar, aged about 19 years, confined at Central prison, Cuddalore, 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]
17.06.2025
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, Chennai -
600 009.
2.The District Collector And District
Magistrate Of Cuddalore District
Cuddalore District.
3.The Superintendent Of Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison Cuddalore, Cuddalore
District - 4.
5.The Inspector Of Police
Thirupapuliyur Police Station,
Cuddalore.
6.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
17.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:33 am )
