V.Deepika vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8812 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8812 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 November, 2025

Madras High Court

V.Deepika vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 21 November, 2025

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N. Sathish Kumar

                                                                                       HCP No. 1734 of 2025




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 21-11-2025

                                                         CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
                                              AND
                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN


                                               HCP No. 1734 of 2025



                V.Deepika


                                                                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                              Vs

                1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
                Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
                Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

                2.The Commissioner of Police,
                Greater Chennai,
                Vepery, Chennai-600 007

                3.The Superintendent,
                Central Prison, Puzhal,
                Chennai-600 066

                4.State rep by
                The Inspector of Police

                1 of 9



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:59 pm )
                                                                                            HCP No. 1734 of 2025



                D-1, Triplican Police Station,
                Chennai Cr.No.325 of 2025

                                                                                            Respondent(s)


                PRAYER
                    This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

                India to issue a writ of habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the

                detention order passed by the 2nd respondent pertaining to the order made in

                NO.348/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated on 14.06.2025 in detain the detenue under

                2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act of 1982 as a Drug Offender and quash the same and

                direct the respondent to produce the Vinothkumar @ Sama Vinoth, son of

                Arumugam, Hindu aged about 27 years, who is detained at Central prison,

                Puzhal, at Chennai before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty


                                   For Petitioner(s):       M/s.C.Johnson Samuel




                                   For Respondent(s):       Mr. A.Gokulakrishnan,
                                                            Addl. Public Prosecutor


                                                        ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

2 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:59 pm )

The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, viz., Vinothkumar @ Sama

Vinoth, aged 27 years, S/o. Arumugam, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,

Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order

passed by the second respondent in No.348/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated

14.06.2025, branding the detenu as "Drug Offender" 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 and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have

also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel

for the petitioner pointed out that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining

Authority in Crl.M.P.No.13461 of 2024 dated 02.12.2024 is not similar to the

case on hand. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Detaining

3 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:59 pm )

Authority has not applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction

that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly state that

the similar case relied upon by the detaining authority is not a similar one.

5. It is seen from the records that in Page No.101 of the Volume-II, this

Court finds that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, in

Crl.M.P.No.13461 of 2024 dated 02.12.2024 is not similar to the case on hand,

by referring to the fact that bail was granted to the accused therein, mainly on

the ground that he has no previous case. But, it is not so in this case. Hence,

this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining

Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail, by relying upon

the aforesaid similar case, 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]

4 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:59 pm )

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 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