Madras High Court
Mariyammal vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
1
HCP.No.1708 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1708 of 2025
Mariyammal,
W/o Selvaraj ..Petitioner
Vs
1. State of TamilNadu,
rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai City,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station,
Chennai. ..Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution
of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to call for the records relating to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:40:32 pm )
2
detention order in Memo No.453/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 07.07.2025
passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and
set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's
son Arjun, S/o Selvaraj aged 22 years, the detenue, now confined in
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kaveriselvam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,Addl.P.P.
ORDER
(The Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar)
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, viz., Arjun, S/o Selvaraj,
aged 22 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has
come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by
the second respondent in No.453/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 07.07.2025,
branding him as "Goonda" under 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. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:40:32 pm )
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining
Authority.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that though
the detenu was formally arrested while he was already in custody, the
same has not been taken note of by the detaining authority while arriving
at a subjective satisfaction that there is compelling necessity to detain him
in order to prevent him from indulging in such further actitivites. Hence,
the subjective satisfaction arrivied at by the Detaining Authority without
indicating the formal arrest of the detenu in the adverse case, while he is
in custody, would vitiate the Detention Order.
4. It is seen from the records that in Page No.28 at para No.4 of the
detention order, the detaining authority has stated that there is real
possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application and
had also stated that he is satisfied that the the detenu Thiru.Arjun is a
Goonda and that there is compelling necessity to detain him in order to
prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future but there is
no indication about the formal arrest of the detenu in respect of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:40:32 pm )
adverse cases. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority without indicating the
formal arrest made in the adverse cases, suffers from non-application of
mind.
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:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:40:32 pm )
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. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
detention order passed by the second respondent in
No.453/BCDFGISSSV dated 07.07.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu,
viz.,Arjun, aged 22 years, S/o Selvaraj, who is now confined in the
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is hereby directed to be set at liberty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:40:32 pm )
forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other
case.
(N.S.K.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.)
vsi 06.11.2025
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai City,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
vsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:40:32 pm )
06.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:40:32 pm )
