Madras High Court

Aarthi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 3 November, 2025

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N. Sathish Kumar

                                                                                       HCP No. 1568 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. 1568 of 2025



                Aarthi
                W/o. Sarathkumar,
                No.27/23, Vinayagapuram Y MCA 2 street,
                Kasimedu, Royapuram, Chennai - 600013.

                                                                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                              Vs

                1. The State of TamilNadu,
                Rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
                Department of Prohibition and excise (Home),
                Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009.

                2.The Commissioner of Police,
                Greater Chennai, Vepert,
                Chennai 600007.

                3.The Superintendent of Prison,
                Central Prison, Puzhal,
                Chennai.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )
                                                                                            HCP No. 1568 of 2025



                4.The Inspector of Police,
                H-8, Thiruvotriyur Police Station,
                Chennai.

                                                                                            Respondent(s)


                PRAYER
                    This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a

                Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in No.435/BCDFGISSSV/2025

                dated 30.06.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the

                same as illegal and produce the detenu Sarath @ Sarathkumar, Son of Kumar,

                aged about 33 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before

                this Honourable Court and set him at liberty.


                                   For Petitioner(s):       Mr. Ilayaraja Kandasamy

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

                                                              ORDER

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

The petitioner/wife of the detenu viz., Sarath @ Sarathkumar, male, aged

33 years, S/o Kumar, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come

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

respondent dated 01.07.2025 branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )

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].

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

statement under 180 (3) of B.N.S.S, said to have been made by the detenu's

relatives before the Sponsoring Authority, are not dated. Hence, the learned

counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to when this statement was

obtained from the detenu's relatives. The learned counsel further pointed out

that, unless the statements 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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )

the statement under 180 (3) of B.N.S.S, said to have been made by the detenu's

relatives before the Sponsoring Authority, is not dated.

5. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the Sponsoring

Authority from the detenu's relatives, enclosed in Page No.203 of Volume-I,

stating that they are planning to file a bail application to bring out the detenu on

bail, are 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.

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]

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 08:43:59 pm )

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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the

second respondent on 01.07.2025 in No.435/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set

aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sarath @

Sarathkumar, Son of Kumar, aged about 33 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 Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

mrp