Madras High Court
Dhanalakshmi vs The Secretary To Government on 3 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
HCP No. 1441 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. 1441 of 2025
Dhanalakshmi
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu (Home),
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Vellore,
Vellore District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Arcot Town Police Staiton,
Arcot, Ranipet District.
Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
HCP No. 1441 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 relating to the impugned
order B3/D.O.No.55/2025 dated 27-06-2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent
herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce
Nandhakumar son of Padmanabhan, aged about 20 years, now confined at
Central Prison, Vellore, before the Honble Court set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. G.Vinodhkumar
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., Nandhakumar, aged
20 years, S/o. Padmanabhan, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent in No.B3/D.O.No.55/2025 dated 27.06.2025, slapped on her son,
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 08:43:59 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 C.M.P.No.3503 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024 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.16 of Volume-I of the
booklet, this Court finds that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, in
C.M.P.No.3503 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024 is not similar to the case on hand. The
bail was granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused therein
was in judicial custody for more than 120 days and the charge sheet has not
been filed and hence, the accused therein was entitled to the mandatory bail.
However, it is not so in the case on hand. Hence, this Court is of the view that
the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
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.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on
27.06.2025 in No.B3/D.O.No.55/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Nandhakumar, S/o.
Padmanabhan, aged 20 years, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, 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
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mrp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu (Home),
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Arcot Town Police station,
Arcot, Ranipet District.
6. 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 )
