Madras High Court
Muniyandi vs The Additional Chief Secretary To Govt on 7 October, 2025
Author: J. Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 1211 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. 1211 of 2025
1. Muniyandi, M/59 years
S/o. Rethinavel, No.872,
Annai Indragandhi, R.M.S. Colony,
Petitioner(s)
Vilar, Thanjavur-613006.
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Govt.
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City.
3.The Superitendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.
4.The Inspector of Police
M-5 Ennore Police Station, Chennai.
Respondent(s)
1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 11:41:41 am )
HCP No. 1211 of 2025
PRAYER:
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India 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 17.06.2025 in MEMO No.87/BCDFGISSSV/2025
against the petitioner's son namely Mathivanan, Male, aged 30 years, S/o.
Muniyandi, 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.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Senthilvel
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
The petitioner, who is the father of the detenue, viz., Mathivanan, aged 30
years, S/o. Muniyandi, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.87/
BCDFGISSSV/2025 Dated 17.06.2025, branding the detenue 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 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 11:41:41 am )
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 the petition, the learned counsel
for the petitioner pointed out that, the bail order in Crl.O.P.No.24833 of 2023,
dated 16.11.2023, relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the
case on hand, by referring to the fact that bail was granted to the accused
persons therein, mainly on the ground they have no previous case, but here in
this case, the petitioner has one previous case. 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. On a perusal of page No.100 of Volume-II Booklet, this Court finds
that, in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, i.e.
Crl.O.P.No.24833 of 2023, dated 16.11.2023, the accused persons therein were
granted bail mainly on the ground that no previous case is pending against them.
But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that one adverse case is
pending against the petitioner herein. 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.
3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 11:41:41 am )
5. 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
4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 11:41:41 am )
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.”
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on
17.06.2025 in Memo No.87/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Mathivanan, S/o
Muniyandi, aged 30 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with
any other case.
(J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)
07/10/25
MST
5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 11:41:41 am )
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.
2.The commissioner of Police,
Avadi City.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, chennai - 600066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
M-5, Ennore Police Station, Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 11:41:41 am )
J.NISHA BANU J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR J.
MST
07/10/25
7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 11:41:41 am )
