Madras High Court
Santhiya vs The Secretary To The Government on 6 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.606 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.606 of 2025
SANTHIYA
Petitioner(s) /wife of the detenue
Vs
1. The Secretary To The Government
Home Prohibition And Excise Department,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector Of Police (law And Order)
C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the
detenu Thiru.Mahesh Son of Murugesan about 22 years, detained in central
prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this court and to call for the records of
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
HCP.No.606 of 2025
detention order passed by the second respondent in
No.24/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 13.01.2025 against petitioner husband
Thiru.Mahesh son of Murugesan about 22 years and set aside the same and
set the detenu at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jagan
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, Mahesh, Son of
Murugesan, aged about 22 years, detained in central prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 13.01.2025 issued against her
husband, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
[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 this petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are
taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of
mind, as the statements under 180(iii) of B.N.S.S, said to have been made
by the detenu's relatives before the Sponsoring Authority, is not dated.
Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to
when this statement was obtained from the detenue's relatives. The learned
counsel further pointed out that, unless the statement relied upon by the
Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detention Order, it may not
have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority based on this undated statement, would vitiate the Detention
Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the
Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relatives, enclosed in the Booklet,
stating that they are planning to file a bail application to bring out the
detenu on bail, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is
seen that the Detaining Authority has observed that the Sponsoring
Authority has stated that he came to understand that the relatives of the
detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail application
before the appropriate Court and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction
that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. When the statements obtained
by the Sponsoring Authority from the relatives of the detenu stating that
they are planning to file bail application to bring out the detenu on bail, are
not dated, the veracity of such statements becomes doubtful. The
compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend on when the
statements were obtained. In the absence of the date, the compelling
necessity to detain, becomes suspect. Hence, this Court is of the view that
the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on such undated
material, suffers from non-application of mind.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 13.01.2025 in No.24/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Mahesh, Son of Murugesan, aged about 22 years, detained in central prison,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
Puzhal, 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,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector Of Police (law And Order)
C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
