Madras High Court
Gunasundari vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 26 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.591 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.591 of 2025
Gunasundari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City
Avadi, Chennai 600 054
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066
4.The Inspector of Police
T-16, Nazarathpet 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 relating to the
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
HCP.No.591 of 2025
detention order in Memo No.42/BCDFGISSSV/2025, dated 07.03.2025,
passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and
set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's
son Manikandan, S/o.Dilli, aged about 26 years, the detenu now confned
at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vinoth 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 mother of the detenu viz.
Manikandan, S/o.Dilli, aged about 26 years, confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent dated 07.03.2025,
slapped on 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: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 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 statement under 161 Cr.P.C., said to have
been made by the detenu's relative before the Sponsoring Authority, is
not dated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide
doubt as to when this statement was obtained from the petitioner's
relative. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the
statement relied upon by 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 statement,
would vitiate the Detention Order.
4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relative, enclosed in the Booklet,
stating that they are planning to file a bail application to bring out the
detenu on bail, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it
is seen that, in Para No.4, the Detaining Authority has observed that the
Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to understand that the
relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing
bail application before the appropriate Court and has arrived at the
subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail.
When the statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the
relatives of the detenu stating that they are planning to file bail
application to bring out the detenu on bail is not dated, the veracity of
such statement becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the
detenu would also depend on when the statement was obtained. In the
absence of the date, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes
suspicious. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on such undated material,
suffers from non-application of mind.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
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 second respondent on 07.03.2025 in No.42/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
viz. Manikandan, aged about 26 years, S/o.Dilli, confined at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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.]
26.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation
Speaking / Non Speaking
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Home,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City
Avadi, Chennai 600 054
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
4.The Inspector of Police
T-16, Nazarathpet Police Station
Chennai
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:50 pm )
