Madras High Court
M.Meera … vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.632 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 05.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.632 of 2025
M.Meera … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector
Cuddalore District
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Cuddalore
4.The Superintendent of Police
Office of Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore
5.The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station, Sethiyathope … Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
H.C.P.No.632 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the entire records relaring
to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide
detention order dated 08.01.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein
made in proceedings Memo C3/D.O./02/2025/Sexual Offender/2025 dated
08.01.2025 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Malarselvan,
son of Govindaswamy, aged 51 years, before this Court and set his life at
liberty from detention.
For petitioner : Mr.P.N.Vignesh
For Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz. Malarselvan,
aged about 51 years, S/o.Govindhasamy, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 07.01.2025 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Sexual
Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
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 a bail order passed by the District Principal and Sessions
Judge, Cuddalore, in Crl.M.P.No.1037 of 2022 dated 28.06.2022, in Crime
No.222 of 2022, for an accused in the said case. On a perusal of the said
order, we find that the said case cannot be said to be similar since the
accused therein was released on bail Under Section 167(2). Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
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
is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
in C3/D.O./02/2025 dated 08.01.2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Malarselvan, Male, aged about
51 years, S/o.Govindhasamy, 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.]
05.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector
Cuddalore District
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Cuddalore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
4.The Superintendent of Police
Office of Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore
5.The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Sethiyathope
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
05.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 01:58:11 pm )
