Madras High Court
Manju Dutta vs The Secretary To The Government on 6 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.321 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.321 of 2025
Manju Dutta
Petitioner(s)/ mother of the detenue
Vs
1. The Secretary To The Government,
Home Prohibition And Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police,
Tambaram City.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.
4.The Inspector Of Police,
PEW Tambaram, Tambaram City,
Chennai.
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the
order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 17.01.2025 in
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
HCP.No.321 of 2025
No.03/BCDFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner's son Subhankar dutta,
Male aged 34 years, S/o. Sumanta dutta, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal-
II, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenue before the Court and set him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
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, Subhankar
dutta, Male aged 34 years, S/o. Sumanta dutta, confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal-II, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent dated 17.01.2025 issued
against her son, branding him as "Drug 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].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 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 3 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 Cr.M.P.No.3988 of 2021 dated 19.01.2022, bail was granted to the
accused therein. On a perusal of the said order, in page No.145 of the
Booklet, 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 38 days and not on merits. Therefore, it is
not a similar case and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
regarding the possibility of the detenu 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
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 04:10:36 pm )
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 17.01.2025 in No.03/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Subhankar dutta, Male aged 34 years, S/o. Sumanta dutta, confined at
Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai, 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]
06.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1. The Secretary To The Government,
Home Prohibition And Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police,
Tambaram City.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.
4.The Inspector Of Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
PEW Tambaram, Tambaram City,
Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
