Madras High Court
Srinivasan vs The Principal Secretary To The on 7 October, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 1506 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
HCP No. 1506 of 2025
1. SRINIVASAN
S/o. Krishnan, No.24, Kallankuthur
Street, Eluvampadi, Thiruvannamalai-
606 803
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Principal Secretary to the
Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise
Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600
009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Tambaram City.
3.The Suprerintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600
066
4.The Inspector of Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
HCP No. 1506 of 2025
Pallikaranai PEW Police Station,
Tambaram City - PEW District.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS or any other Writ or Order in the
nature of Writ call for the Records in Connection with the order of Detention
passed by the Second Respondent dated 02.06.2025 in BCDFGISSSV
No.65/2025 against Petitioner's Friend R.PREMKUMAR, Male aged 29 Years
S/o. Ravi, Who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal and set aside the same and
direct the respondent to produce the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set
him liberty.
For Petitioner(s): A.Tamilselvan
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional
Public Prosecutor For
Respondents
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu J.
and
S.Sounthar,J.
The petitioner is the friend of the detenue, viz., R.Premkumar, S/o Ravi
aged 29 years, 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.65/2025 dated 02.06.2025, branding him as
"Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
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] read with the order
issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.105 Home Prohibition and Excise
(XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 under sub section (2) of section 3 of the
said Act.
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 special report furnished
to the detenue is not dated. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived
of making effective representation and it would vitiate the detention order.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly states that the
special report furnished to the detenue is not dated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
5. It is seen from the records that at Vol-I page 151-153, there is no date
in the special report furnished to the detenu. The compelling necessity to
detain the detenu would also depend on when the special report was obtained.
In the absence of the date, the compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspect.
Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority based on such undated material, 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
“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.”
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
order passed by the second respondent second in BCDFGISSSV No.65/2025
dated 02.06.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz.,S.R.Premkumar, aged 29
years, S/o Ravi, 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.)
07-10-2025
vsi
To
1.The Principal Secretary to the
Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise
Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600
2.The Commissioner of Police
Tambaram City.
3.The Suprerintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600
4.The Inspector of Police
Pallikaranai PEW Police Station,
Tambaram City - PEW District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
J.NISHA BANU J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR J.
vsi
07-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
