Madras High Court
Kumar vs The State Rep By on 14 October, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 1789 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P No. 1789 of 2025
1. Kumar
S/o.Selvaraj, Kurinji Nagar Housing
Board, Narayanan Nagar,
Kitchipalayam, Salem.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By, The Secretary to
Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Salem City.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Inspector Of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem.
Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
HCP No. 1789 of 2025
PRAYER
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to call for the records in C.M.P.No.26/Goonda/Salem
City/2025 dated 09.06.2025 on the file of the Commissioner of Police, Salem
City, the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the
respondent to produce the detenu Sarathi, S/o.Kumar, aged about 21 years, now
confined at Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sengkodi
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 detenu viz., Sarathi, S/o.Kumar,
aged about 21 years, confined at Central Prison, Salem, has come forward with
this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 09.06.2025 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: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 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 the petition, the learned counsel
for the petitioner pointed out that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining
Authority in Crl.O.P.No.25959/2024 dated 21.10.2024 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 Nos.13 to 15
of Volume-II, the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority in
Crl.O.P.No.25959/2024 dated 21.10.2024 is not similar to the case on hand. The
accused therein was granted bail mainly on the ground that there was no
previous case, but in the present case, the detenu is having two previous cases.
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: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 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: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 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 in
C.M.P.No.26/Goonda/Salem City/2025 dated 09.06.2025 is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sarathi, S/o. Kumar,
aged 21 years, detained at Central Prison, Salem, 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.)
14-10-2025
ASI
To
1. The Secretary To Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Salem City.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
4.The Inspector Of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem.
5. The Joint Secretary,
Law & Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ASI
14-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:27:45 pm )
