Madras High Court
Geetha vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1728 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1728 of 2025
Geetha ... Petitioner/Detenue's Mother
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Mayiladuthurai District
at Mayiladuthurai District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Mayiladuthurai District.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention
order in C.O.C.No.30/2025 dated 26-07-2025 passed by the 2nd
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:40 pm )
H.C.P.No.1728 of 2025
Respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same
and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Vijay @ Kundu
Vijay, S/o.Ramesh the detenue now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore
before this Hon'ble Court and set the petitioner's son Vijay @ Kundu Vijay
S/o.Ramesh aged about 28 years the detenue herein at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Naresh
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenue,
namely, Vijay @ Kundu Vijay, S/o.Ramesh, aged about 28 years, detained
at Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition,
challenging the detention order dated 26.07.2025, passed by the second
respondent in C.O.C.No.30/2025, branding him as a "Goonda", as
contemplated under Section 2(f) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:40 pm )
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
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 subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority regarding the possibility of the detenue coming out on bail, by
relying upon the bail order dated 17.05.2021, granted to the accused in a
similar case in Crl.M.P.No.570 of 2021, suffers from non-application of
mind.
4. In paragraph No.4 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, since, in a similar case, bail was
granted to the accused therein and relied upon an order passed by this Court
in Crl.M.P.No.570 of 2021 in respect of Crime No.241 of 2021 on the file
of Mayiladuthurai Police Station. According to the petitioner, the accused
therein was released on statutory bail, which cannot be taken as a precedent
for the detenue in respect of the imminent possibility of 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:40 pm )
non-application of mind, which vitiates the detention order.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:40 pm )
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. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the SECOND RESPONDENT
in C.O.C.No.30/2025 dated 26.07.2025, is hereby set aside. The detenue,
viz., Vijay @ Kundu Vijay, S/o.Ramesh, aged about 28 years, who is now
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:40 pm )
ar
confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore is hereby directed to be set at
liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any
other case.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
05.11.2025
ar
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Mayiladuthurai District at Mayiladuthurai District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Mayiladuthurai District.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order), Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1728 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:40 pm )
