Madras High Court

Vellaipandi Alias Kasi vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By on 26 November, 2025

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N. Sathish Kumar

HCP No. 2037 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-11-2025
CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P No. 2037 of 2025

1. Vellaipandi Alias Kasi
S/o.Sentraiyan, Ward No.15. South
Street, Devadanapatty, Periyakulam,
Theni District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu rep by
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District
Magistrate
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent of Police
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Annur Police Station, Coimbatore.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to issue a Writ, Order or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:11 pm )
HCP No. 2037 of 2025

direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for
the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd
respondent made in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.25/G/2025 dated 12.07.2025
in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a
Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the Detenu
namely Vellaipandi Alias Kasi S/o.Sentraiyan Male aged about 23 years who is
now detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Court and set him at
liberty and pass such other orders as this Court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar

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

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR J.)

The petitioner/ detenu viz., Vellaipandi @ Kasi, aged about 23 years,

S/o.Sentraiyan, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with

this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent

dated 12.07.2025 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 and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have

also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:11 pm )

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

for the petitioner pointed out that, the bail order in Crl.M.P.No.6637 of 2024

dated 16.11.2024, relied upon by the Detaining Authority 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 perusal of the records, this Court finds that the case relied upon by

the Detaining Authority, in Crl.M.P.No.6637 of 2024 dated 16.11.2024 is not

similar to the case on hand and the bail was granted to the accused therein,

mainly on the ground that he has no previous case. But in this case, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that three adverse cases are pending

against the detenu. 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:11 pm )

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. 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 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.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:11 pm )

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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on

12.07.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.25/G/2025 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus

Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vellaipandi @ Kasi, aged 23 years,

S/o Sentraiyan, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to be set at

liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.) 26-11-2025

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No Mrp

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 04:35:11 pm )