Madras High Court
Sathyamoorthy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
HCP No. 1306 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. 1306 of 2025
Sathyamoorthy,
S/o. Palanisamy, No.6, Subburaj Nagar,
Kodoapu, Vuyya Kandan Thirumalai,
Somarasam Pettai Post,
Tiruchi - 620102.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Police Station,
Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.
1/ 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
HCP No. 1306 of 2025
4.The Superitendent,
Special Prison for Women,
Coimbatore.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
This writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas corpus calling upon the production of the records relating
to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondents in proceedings
C.NO.88/G/IS/2025 on 23.05.2025 under the Tamil Nadu Act/14/1982 as a
CYBER LAW OFFENDER and quash the same and direct the respondents to
produce the petitioner's wife Nithya, aged 32 years, who has been detained in
Special Prison for Women, Coimbatore, before this Hon'ble Court and set her at
liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. K.C.Karl Marx
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 husband of the detenue Nithya, aged 32 years,
has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
the second respondent dated 23.05.2025 bearing reference C.No.88/G/IS/2025
slapped on his wife, branding her as "Cyber Law Offender" under the Tamil
Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,
Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum
Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
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 bail order relied upon by the Detaining
Authority in Crl.M.P.No.15181 of 2023 dated 18.04.2023 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that in Page No.95 of the
Volume-II, the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.15181
of 2023, dated 18.04.2023 is not similar to the case on hand. Hence, this Court
is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the
detenue is also likely to be released on bail, by 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
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.”
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent in
No.C.No.88/G/IS/2025 dated 23.05.2025 is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz.,Nithya, W/o. Sathya Moorthy,
aged 32 years, detained at Special Prison for Women, Coimbatore, is directed
to be set at liberty forthwith, unless she is required in connection with any other
case.
(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)
03-11-2025
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mrp
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -
600009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
3.The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Police Station,
Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent,
Special Prison for Women, Coimbatore.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
mrp
03-11-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
