Madras High Court
Gomathi … vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 30 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.966 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.966 of 2025
Gomathi … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The District Magistrate & District Collector
Namakkal
Namakkal District
3.The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal
Namakkal District
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison - Salem
Salem District
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
H.C.P.No.966 of 2025
5.State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Rasipuram
Namakkal District … Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records,
relating to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982 vide detention order dated 08.03.2025 on the file of the second
respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.M.P.No.19/Sexual
Offender/2025 [M1], quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Yuvaraj,
S/o.Muthusamy, aged 30 years, before this Court and set the petitioner's
husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's husband detained at
Central Prison, Salem.
For petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
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. Yuvaraj, aged
about 30 years, S/o.Muthusamy, has come forward with this petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
08.03.2025 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, 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 learned Sessions Judge, Magalir
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Namakkal, in Crl.M.P.No.176
of 2024, in Crime No.18 of 2024, 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 for the offence
committed U/s.137(ii) BNS & 5(l). 5(j)(ii) r/w 6(l) of POCSO Act, 2012,
whereas in the present case, the detenu was remanded to judicial custody in
connection with the Crime No.04/2025 U/s.87 BNS & 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of
POCSO Act, 2012. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
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 respondent
in C.M.P.No.19/Sexual Offender/2025/[M1] dated 08.03.2025, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Yuvaraj,
Male, aged about 30 years, S/o.Muthusamy, presently detained at Central
Prison, Salem, 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.]
30.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The District Magistrate & District Collector
Namakkal
Namakkal District
3.The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal
Namakkal District
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison - Salem
Salem District
5.The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Rasipuram
Namakkal District
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:42:12 pm )
