S.Sasikala vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2025 Latest Caselaw 8284 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8284 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2025

Madras High Court

S.Sasikala vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 November, 2025

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N. Sathish Kumar

                                                                                       HCP No. 1779 of 2025



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 03-11-2025

                                                         CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
                                              AND
                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

                                               HCP No. 1779 of 2025

                 S.Sasikala
                                                                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                              Vs

                1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
                   Rep by its Secretary to Government,
                   Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
                   Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

                2.The Commissioner of Police,
                  Greater Chennai Corporation,
                  Chennai - 600007.

                3.The Superintendent of Prison,
                  Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
                  Chennai - 600066.

                4.The Inspector of Police,
                  R-11, Ramapuram Police Station,
                  Chennai - 600089.

                                                                                       Respondent(s)


                1/7



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:44:00 pm )
                                                                                            HCP No. 1779 of 2025



                PRAYER
                This writ 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     21.06.2025   in

                No.396/BCDFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner's son Thiru Sudhagar, S/o.

                Subramani aged about 29 years, who is confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal

                and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before

                this Honorable Court and set him at liberty.


                                   For Petitioner(s):       Mr.R.Sivakumar

                                   For Respondent(s):       Mr. A.Gokulakrishnan,
                                                            Addl. Public Prosecutor

                                                              ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, viz., Sudhagar, aged 29

years, S/o. Subramani, confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, has come

forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second

respondent in No.396/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 21.06.2025, branding the

detenu 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: 12/11/2025 08:44:00 pm )

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have

also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel

for the petitioner pointed out that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining

Authority in Crl.M.P.No.7183 of 2024 dated 02.12.2024 is not similar to the

case on hand. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted 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.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly state that

the similar case relied upon by the detaining authority is not a similar one.

5. It is seen from the records that in Page No.191 of the Volume-II, this

Court finds that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, in

Crl.M.P.No.7183 of 2024 dated 02.12.2024 is not similar to the case on hand,

by referring to the fact that bail was granted to the accused therein, mainly on

the ground that he has no previous case. But in this case, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor submitted that two previous cases are pending against the

detenu. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the

Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail, by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:44:00 pm )

relying upon the aforesaid similar case, suffers from non-application of mind.

6. 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 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: 12/11/2025 08:44:00 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.”

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on

21.06.2025 in Memo No.396/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside and the

Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Sudhagar,

S/o.Subramani, aged 29 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is

directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with

any other case.

(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.) 03-11-2025

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No mrp

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:44:00 pm )