Madras High Court
Famshad vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
HCP.No.1822 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1822 of 2025
Famshad ... Petitioner/
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by Additional Chief Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police
St.Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puhzhal-I
Chennai – 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police
Law & Order
S-8, Adambakkam Police Station
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
HCP.No.1822 of 2025
Greater Chennai – 600 088 .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in
respect of the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
29.07.2025 in Detention Order no.BBCDEFGISSSV No.514/2025 and
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the
petitioner, the detenue, Famshad S/o.Mohamed aged about 26 years before
this Court, now detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal-I-, Chennai – 66 and
thereby, set the petitioner and liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The petitioner, detenue, aged about 26 years, has come forward with
this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 29.07.2025 bearing reference Detention Order
no.BBCDEFGISSSV No.514/2025 slapped against the petitioner branding
him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
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.The Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu
was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection with the
ground case, but the detenu has not moved any bail application and
therefore, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the
near future, however, the detaining authority while passing the impugned
detention order arrived at the subjective satisfaction regarding imminent
possibility of coming out on bail by relying on a bail order in
Crl.M.P.No.5272 of 2023 wherein statutory bail was granted to one
Sanjaykumar @ Sanjay S/o.Saravanan.
4. In this regard, the learned counsel drew the attention this Court to
the order in Crl.M.P.No.5272 of 2023, which is enclosed at Page No. 155 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
the booklet. A careful perusal of the said order, brings to light that it is a
case of statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, taking a
default bail order as a basis for arriving at subjective satisfaction regarding
the imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail shows clear non-
application of mind. Therefore, the impugned preventive detention order
deserves to be dislodged.
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. 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
“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 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. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
2nd respondent dated 23.06.2025 in C3/D.O.No.23/2025 is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Famshad,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
S/o.Mohamed, male, aged 26 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith
unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
04.11.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dhk
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police
St.Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puhzhal-I
Chennai – 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police
Law & Order
S-8, Adambakkam Police Station
Greater Chennai – 600 088
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9
7.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
dhk
04.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:17 pm )
