Madras High Court
Amudha vs The Additional Chief Secretary To The ... on 30 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1546 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1546 of 2025
Amudha ... Petitioner/Detenue's Mother
-vs-
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
(Law and Order),
R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station,
Chennai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the
detention order in No.466/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 12.07.2025 on the file
of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same and direct the respondents to
produce the person of petitioner son one named Chithambaram
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:16 pm )
H.C.P.No.1546 of 2025
S/o.Kalimuthu aged about 30 years now confined at Central Prison Puzhal
Chennai before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenue,
namely, Chithambaram S/o.Kalimuthu aged about 30 years, detained at
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this petition,
challenging the detention order dated 12.07.2025, passed by the second
respondent in No.466/BCDFGISSSV/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.
3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:16 pm )
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 02.12.2024, granted to the accused in a
similar case in Crl.M.P.No.7183 of 2024, suffers from non-application of
mind.
4. In paragraph No.3 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 in
Crl.M.P.No.7183 of 2024 in Crime No.1287 of 2024 on the file of
Maduvoyal Police Station, Salem. According to the petitioner, the bail was
granted to the accused therein on the ground that investigation had almost
been completed, which is not the case in respect of the detenue herein and
therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, regarding
the possibility of the detenue coming out on 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:16 pm )
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:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:16 pm )
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
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in
No.466/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 12.07.2025, is hereby set aside. The
detenue, viz., Chithambaram S/o.Kalimuthu aged about 30 years, who is
now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is hereby directed to
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:16 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with
any other case.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
30.10.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
(Law and Order),
R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station,
Chennai District.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1546 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:16 pm )
