Madras High Court
Jayanta Tarei vs The Secretary To The Government on 6 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.327 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.327 of 2025
Jayanta Tarei
Petitioner(s)/ brother 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
4.The Inspector Of Police
PEW Tambaram, Tambaram City
...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 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.327 of 2025
No.01/BCDFGISSSV/2025 against petitioner's brother Srikanta Tarei, Male
aged 26 years S/o.Chandra Mohan Tarei, who is Confined at Central Prison
Puzhal-II 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 brother of the detenu, Srikanta Tarei,
aged 26 years, S/o.Chandra Mohan Tarei, confined at Central Prison Puzhal-
II, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the second respondent dated 17.01.2025 issued against his
brother, 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 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
Court below had dismissal bail petition of the accused therein and the same
was furnished to the detenue.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the bail order
relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.7603 of 2023 dated
21.11.2023, is not similar to the case on hand, since the lower Court had
dismissed the bail application of the accused therein. 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 04:10:36 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 04:10:36 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 17.01.2025 in No.01/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Srikanta Tarei, aged 26 years, S/o.Chandra Mohan Tarei, confined at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
Central Prison Puzhal-II, 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
4.The Inspector Of Police
PEW Tambaram, Tambaram City
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 04:10:36 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 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 04:10:36 pm )
