Madras High Court

A.Uma Maheshwari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 October, 2025

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N.Sathish Kumar

H.C.P.No.1357 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.1357 of 2025
A.Uma Maheshwari ... Petitioner/Detenue's Wife
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

3. The Superintendent Of Police,
O/o.Superintendent Office,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.

5. State Rep. by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Thirupapuliyur Police Station,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:25:14 pm )
H.C.P.No.1357 of 2025

of the 2nd respondent herein in C3/D.O./84/2025 dated 23.06.2025 and
quash the same and produce the detenue Thiru.Ayyamperumal Male aged
41 years S/o.Kaliyaperumal TPDA No.4567 now detained at Central Prison
Cuddalore Cuddalore District before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,

Ayyamperumal, S/o.Kaliyaperumal, aged about 41 years, detained at

Central Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition, challenging

the detention order dated 23.06.2025, passed by the second respondent in

C3/D.O./84/2025, branding him as a "Goonda", as contemplated under

Section 2(f) of 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. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:25:14 pm )

3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several

other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his

argument on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining

Authority regarding the possibility of the detenue coming out on bail, by

relying upon the bail order dated 28.12.2023, granted to the accused in a

similar case in Crl.O.P.No.29258 of 2023, suffers from non-application of

mind.

4. In paragraph No.5 of the Grounds of Detention, the

Detaining Authority has stated that there is a possibility of the detenue

coming out on bail in the ground case, since, in a similar case, bail was

granted to the accused therein and relied upon an order passed by this Court

in Crime No.432 of 2023 on the file of Vridhachalam Police Station. On a

perusal of the said order in Page No.50 of the Booklet (Vol.I), this Court

finds that the bail was granted to the accused therein on the ground that

there is no previous case against the accused therein, whereas the detenue

herein has one adverse case and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the

Detaining Authority, regarding the possibility of the detenue coming out on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:25:14 pm )

bail suffers from non-application of mind, which vitiates the detention

order.

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. In the instant case, the

Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the

detenue is likely to be released on bail by referring to a bail order granted to

an accused in a similar case in Cr.M.P.No.1358 of 2023. However, the said

bail was granted on the ground that the investigation has been completed

and not on merits and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining

Authority that the detenue is likely to be released on bail suffers from non-

application of mind. Hence, on the above grounds, the Detention Order 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: 30/10/2025 04:25:14 pm )

“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.”

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. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:25:14 pm )

allowed and the Detention Order passed by the SECOND RESPONDENT

in C3/D.O./84/2025 dated 23.06.2025, is hereby set aside. The detenue,

viz., Ayyamperumal, S/o.Kaliyaperumal, aged 41 years, who is now

confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore is hereby directed to be set at

liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any

other case.

                                                                              (N.S.K,J.,)     (M.J.R,J.,)
                                                                                     27.10.2025
                     Index: Yes / No
                     Internet: Yes / No
                     ar




                     To:






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis            ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:25:14 pm )




                     1. The Secretary to Government,
                        State of Tamil Nadu,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, O/o.Superintendent Office, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

5. The Inspector of Police, Thirupapuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District.

6. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order), Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:25:14 pm )

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

27.10.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:25:14 pm )