Madras High Court
Jothi vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 24 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1144 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1144 of 2025
Jothi ... Petitioner/Detenue's Wife
-vs-
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakka, Namakkal District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal, Namakkal District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-Salem, Salem District.
5. The State Rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tiruchengode, Namakkal District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the
petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide
detention order dated 10.06.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:00 am )
H.C.P.No.1144 of 2025
made in proceedings in C.M.P.No.59/Sexual Offender/2025/(M1) quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce
the petitioner's husband, namely, Nehru, S/o.Palanisamy, aged 35 years
before this Honble High Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty
from detention now the petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison
Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,
Nehru, S/o.Palanisamy, aged 35 years, detained at Central Prison, Salem,
has come forward with this petition, challenging the detention order dated
10.06.2025, passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.59/Sexual
Offender/2025/(M1), branding him as a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated
under Section 2(ggg) 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: 27/11/2025 11:00:00 am )
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
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.340 of 2020 dated 03.09.2020 is
not similar to the case on hand. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted
that the Detaining 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, as Charge Sheet had already been filed in that case.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that in Page
No.6 of the Volume-II, the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority in
Crl.M.P.No.340 of 2020, dated 03.09.2020 is not similar to the case on
hand. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the
Detaining Authority that the detenue is also likely to be released on bail, by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:00 am )
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] 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: 27/11/2025 11:00:00 am )
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
and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the
detention order is liable to be quashed.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the SECOND RESPONDENT
in C.M.P.No.59/Sexual Offender/2025/(M1) dated 10.06.2025, is hereby set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:00 am )
aside. The detenue, viz., Nehru, S/o.Palanisamy, aged 35 years, who is now
confined in the Central Prison, Salem 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.,)
24.11.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakka, Namakkal District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal, Namakkal District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-Salem, Salem District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:00 am )
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 11:00:00 am )
