Madras High Court
Devi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
HCP.No.1942 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.1942 of 2025
Devi ... Petitioner/Mother of the detenu
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by the Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police
(Goondas Section)
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison
Chennai Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai – 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police
J-7, Velachery Police Station
Chennai – 600 042 .. Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:38 pm )
HCP.No.1942 of 2025
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating
to the detention order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the second respondent n
No.B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V/501/2025 and quash the same and direct the
respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son Rajeshkumar,
S/o.Illangovan, aged 27 years who is presently under going detention in the
Chennai Central Prison, Puzhal-II, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sathyanarayanan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Rajeshkumar, S/o.
Ilangovan, male, aged about 27 years, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
25.07.2025 bearing Memo No.B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V/501/2025 slapped
on her son 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:38 pm )
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 a relative of the detenu is taking
steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as
the statement under 180 (iii) of BNSS, said to have been made by the
detenu's relative before the Sponsoring Authority, is undated. Hence, the
learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to when this
statement was obtained from the detenu's relative. The learned counsel
further pointed out that, unless the statement 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. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not refuted the
furnishing of undated 180(iii) statement to the detenu that was given by his
relative.
5. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the
Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relative, enclosed in the Booklet at
Pg.No.52 of Vol.I stating that he is planning to file a bail application to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:38 pm )
bring out the detenu on bail, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of
Detention, it is seen that, in Para No.4, the Detaining Authority has
observed that the Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to
understand that the relative of the detenu is 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 statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relative
of the detenu stating that he is planning to file bail application to bring out
the detenu on bail is not dated, the veracity of such statement becomes
doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend
on when the statement was obtained. In the absence of the date, the
compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspicious. 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] 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:38 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:38 pm )
and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the
detention order is liable to be quashed.
8. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 25.07.2025 in
No.B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V/501/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz.,
Rajeshkumar, male, aged about 27 years S/o.Ilangovan 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:38 pm )
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Office of the Commissioner of Police
(Goondas Section)
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison
Chennai Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai – 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police
J-7, Velachery Police Station
Chennai – 600 042
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order)
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:38 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
dhk
04.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:38 pm )
