Madras High Court
Esther vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 24 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1160 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.1160 of 2025
Esther ... Petitioner/Detenue's Mother
-vs-
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 66.
4. The Inspector of Police,
W-7 All Women Police Station,
Anna Nagar, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of
Detention passed by the second respondent dated 07.06.2025 in Memo
No.324/BCDFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner's son, namely, Danielraj,
male, aged 44 years, S/o.Palraj, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal and
set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before
the Honble Court and set him at liberty.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:16 pm )
H.C.P.No.1160 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.C.P.Sivamohan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenue, namely,
Danielraj, S/o.Palraj, male, aged 44 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, has come forward with this petition, challenging the detention order
dated 07.06.2025, passed by the second respondent in Memo
No.324/BCDFGISSSV/2025, 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
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:16 pm )
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.7318 of 2025 dated 04.06.2025 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.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that in Page
No.86 of the Volume-II, the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority in
Crl.M.P.No.7318 of 2025, dated 04.06.2025 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:16 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:16 pm )
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 in Memo No.324/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 07.06.2025, is hereby set
aside. The detenue, viz., Danielraj, S/o.Palraj, male, aged 44 years, who is
now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is hereby directed to be
set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:16 pm )
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, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 66.
4. The Inspector of Police,
W-7 All Women Police Station,
Anna Nagar, Chennai.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:16 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:16 pm )
