Madras High Court
Sathya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1955 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
H.C.P.No.1955 of 2025
Sathya ... Petitioner/Detenue's Wife
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority,
Tiruppur City.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The Inspector of Police,
15-Velampalayam Police Station
Tiruppur. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order
dated 02.06.2025 passed by the second respondent in his proceedings
No.C.No.33/ITO/IS/Tiruppur City/2025 and quash the same and direct the
respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband, namely,
Karthikeyan, S/o.Nachimuthu, aged about 41 years, who is presently
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:42:06 pm )
H.C.P.No.1955 of 2025
undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore as immoral Traffic
before this Honble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,
Karthikeyan, S/o.Nachimuthu, aged about 41 years, detained at Central
Prison, Coimbatore has come forward with this petition, challenging the
detention order dated 02.06.2025, passed by the second respondent in
C.No.33/ITO/IS/Tiruppur City/2025, branding him as a "Immoral Traffic
Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(g) of 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).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:42:06 pm )
3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
argument on the ground that the bail application filed by the detenue was
dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Tiruppur. However, the
Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention indicated the imminent
possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in the case. Hence, the
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the possibility
of the detenue coming out on bail without referring to another case, suffers
from non-application of mind.
4. In paragraph No.5 of the Grounds of Detention, the
Detaining Authority has stated that there is a possibility of the detenue
coming out on bail in the ground case, by referring to the some other
similarly, but, however the bail application that moved by the detenue was
dismissed by the Magistrate and there is no imminent possibility of the
detenue coming out on bail and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the
Detaining Authority, regarding the possibility of the detenue coming out on
bail suffers from non-application of mind, which vitiates the detention
order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:42:06 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. In the instant case, the
Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the
detenue is likely to be released on bail by referring to a bail order granted to
an accused in a similar case in Cr.M.P.No.1358 of 2023. However, the said
bail was granted on the ground that the investigation has been completed
and not on merits and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority that the detenue is likely to be released on bail suffers from non-
application of mind. Hence, on the above grounds, the Detention Order 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:42:06 pm )
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.”
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. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in
C.No.33/ITO/IS/Tiruppur City/2025 dated 02.06.2025, is hereby set aside.
The detenue, viz., Karthikeyan, S/o.Nachimuthu, aged about 41 years, who
is now confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore is hereby directed to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:42:06 pm )
set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with
any other case.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
03.11.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:42:06 pm )
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority,
Tiruppur City.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The Inspector of Police,
15-Velampalayam Police Station
Tiruppur.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:42:06 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
03.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 05:42:06 pm )
