Madras High Court
Ameena Beevi vs State Rep By on 6 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.164 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.164 of 2025
Ameena Beevi
Petitioner(s)/ mother of the detenue
Vs
1. State Rep by
The Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition And Excise Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal,
4.Inspector Of Police
Alpha 4, Fake Passport Investigation Wing,
Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:35 pm )
HCP.No.164 of 2025
detention order No. 285/2024, dated 28.12.2024 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 husband Nalla
Mohammed, aged 60 years, confined in Central Prison, Salem before this
Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Sheik Mohamed
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, Nalla
Mohammed, aged 60 years, confined in Central Prison, Salem, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the
second respondent dated 28.12.2024 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 Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:35 pm )
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 to the accused therein on the ground that the co-accused had
been granted bail.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-II, this Court finds that the
bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.6057 of
2023 dated 31.10.2023, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused
therein was granted bail on the ground that the co-accused had been granted
bail. Therefore, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the
Detaining Authority is irrational and the detention order is liable to quashed
on the ground of non-application of mind.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:35 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 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,
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:35 pm )
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 28.12.2024 in No.285/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Nalla
Mohammed, aged 60 years, confined in Central Prison, Salem, is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:35 pm )
be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other
case.
[M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J]
06.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition And Excise Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal,
4.Inspector Of Police
Alpha 4, Fake Passport Investigation Wing,
Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:35 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:35 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:35 pm )
