Madras High Court
Gayathri vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 30 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.918 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.918 of 2025
Gayathri ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu
Represented by its Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Mayiladuthurai District
Mayiladuthurai
3.The Superintendent of Police
Mayiladuthurai District
Mayiladuthurai
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Cuddalore
Cuddalore District
5.The Inspector of Police
Perambur Police Station
Tharangambadi Taluk
Mayiladuthurai District ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 01:33:28 pm )
H.C.P.No.918 of 2025
Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus,
to call for the records made in C.O.C.No.09/2025 dated 10.03.2025 on
the file of second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and
direct the respondents to produce the detenu Moovendhan @ Chinnappa,
Son of Munusamy, 24 years, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore
before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner, who is the sister of the detenu viz., Thangadurai,
Male, aged about 28 years, S/o.Munusamy, confined at Central prison,
Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 10.03.2025 slapped on her
brother, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers
and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 01:33:28 pm )
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole
ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority
regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by relying
upon the bail order granted to the accused in a similar case, suffers from
non-application of mind.
4. On a perusal, it is seen that in paragraph 4 of the Grounds of
Detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that there is a possibility of
the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case since in a similar case
i.e. in C.M.P.No.570 of 2021, bail was granted to the accused therein.
On a perusal of the said order, in page Nos.49 and 50 of the Booklet in
Volume II, this Court finds that the said order relates to release of the
accused on bail u/s.167[2] of Cr.P.C. and the bail was granted to the
accused therein since he had been in prison for 90 days and not on
merits. Therefore, it is not a similar case and the subjective satisfaction
of the Detaining Authority, regarding the possibility of the detenu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 01:33:28 pm )
coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind, which vitiates
the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the detention order is liable
to be quashed.
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 01:33:28 pm )
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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 01:33:28 pm )
respondent, in C.O.C.No.09/2025, dated 10.03.2025, is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Moovendhan
@ Chinnappa, aged about 24 years, S/o.Munusamy, 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.]
30.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking
Neutral Citation
To
1.The Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Mayiladuthurai District
Mayiladuthurai
3.The Superintendent of Police
Mayiladuthurai District
Mayiladuthurai
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Cuddalore
Cuddalore District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 01:33:28 pm )
5.The Inspector of Police
Perambur Police Station
Tharangambadi Taluk
Mayiladuthurai District
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 01:33:28 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 01:33:28 pm )
