Madras High Court
Usha vs The Secretary To The Government on 6 October, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 1694 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P No. 1694 of 2025
1. Usha
W/o.Govinthasamy, No.5/174,
Nallathoorai Street, Koman Nagar,
Thaiyur, Kachipuram-603 103.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary To The Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police,
Tambaram City, Tambaram, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
Chennai-600 066.
4.The Inspector Of Police,
T-19, Kelambakkam Police
Station,Chennai.
Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
HCP No. 1694 of 2025
PRAYER
The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to
produce the petitioners Son Mr.Vimal Raj @ Vimal, S/o.Govinthasamy, Male
aged about 23 years and now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai
before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith by setting aside the order of
Detention bearing BCDFGISSSV No.48/2025 dated 08.05.2025 on the file of
the Second respondents.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Thirumaran
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenue, viz., G.Vimalraj @ Vimal,
aged 23 years, S/o Govindasamy, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.48/2025 dated
08.05.2025, 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].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
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 this petition, the learned counsel
for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective satisfaction
of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to
take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the Special
Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel
raised a bona fide doubt as to the date on which the Special Report was sent by
the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel
further pointed out that, unless the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority
is immediately before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence,
the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on these undated
documents, would vitiate the Detention Order.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly submit that
the special report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated.
5. It is seen from records that in Page Nos. 123 to 125 of the Volume – I,
the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated. When the Special
Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated, the veracity of the Report
becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
depend on when the Sponsoring Authority has sent his Report. Hence, this
Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining
Authority based on such undated materials, 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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
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. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention
order passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.48/2025 dated
08.05.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz.,Vimalraj @ Vimal, aged 23
years, S/o Govindasamy, 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 other case.
(J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)
06-10-2025
ASI
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
To
1.The Secretary To The Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police,
Tambaram City, Tambaram, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
Chennai-600 066.
4.The Inspector Of Police,
T-19, Kelambakkam Police Station,
Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
J.NISHA BANU J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR J.
ASI
06-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:45 pm )
