Madras High Court
Sowmiya vs The Secretary To The Government on 27 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
HCP.No.1442 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 27.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1442 of 2025
Sowmiya ... Petitioner/
Wife of the detenu
Versus
1. The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, St.George Fort
Chennai – 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Tirupattur District
Tirupattur – 635 601
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore
4. The Superintendent of Police
Tirupattur
5. The Inspector of Police
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
HCP.No.1442 of 2025
Jolarpet Police Station
Tirupattur District .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in
respect of the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
23.06.2025 in Detention Order no.C3/D.O.No.23/2025 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to set the detenue Vasanth Kumar,
S/o.Saravanan at liberty forthwith, who is now confined in Central Prison,
Vellore.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Shanmugam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Vasanthkumar,
S/o.Saravanan, male, aged 24 years, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
23.06.2025 bearing reference C3/D.O.No.46/2025 slapped on her husband
branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video
Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, in Volume II page Nos.46-52, this
Court finds that in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority,
i.e.,Crl.O.P.No.3150 of 2023, dated 13.02.2023, the accused therein was
granted bail mainly on the ground that there was no intention or motive on
the part of the accused to murder the deceased and only due to sudden
provocation, they have acted so. But in the present case, the detenu, alleged
to have committed murder due to previous enmity. He went to the place of
occurrence with deadly weapons along with other accused and alleged to
have assaulted the deceased. However, the detaining authority took into
consideration the said order passed in Crl.O.P.No.3150 of 2023 and came to
the conclusion that there is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail.
Therefore, the bail order that was relied upon by the detaining authority
cannot be considered to be a similar one. 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: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
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. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
2nd respondent dated 23.06.2025 in C3/D.O.No.23/2025 is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vasanthkumar,
S/o.Saravanan, male, aged 24 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith
unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
27.10.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gpa
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
1. The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, St.George Fort
Chennai – 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Tirupattur District
Tirupattur – 635 601
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore
4. The Superintendent of Police
Tirupattur
5. The Inspector of Police
Jolarpet Police Station
Tirupattur District
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order)
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9
7.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
gpa
27.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 05:54:21 pm )
