Madras High Court
Niveetha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1741 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.1741 of 2025
Niveetha ... Petitioner/Detenue's Wife
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home),
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
V-6, Kolathur Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for records in No.431/BCDFGISSSV/2025
dated 01.07.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside
the same as illegal and produce the detenue Vishalram, S/o.Vijayarangan
aged about 26 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 05:36:08 pm )
H.C.P.No.1741 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely,
Vishalram, S/o.Vijayarangan aged about 26 years, detained at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this petition, challenging
the detention order dated 01.07.2025, passed by the second respondent in
No.431/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
other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his
argument on the ground that the detenue was remanded on PT warrant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 05:36:08 pm )
respect of another case in Crime No.211 of 2025 on the file of the V-4,
Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai on 21.06.2025. However, the
Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention indicated the possibility of
the detenue coming out on bail in the previous case in Crime No.185 of
2025 on the file of V-6, Kolathur Police Station. Hence, the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the possibility of the
detenue coming out on bail without referring to another case, suffers from
non-application of mind.
4. In paragraph No.4 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 in Crime No.185 of 2025 and there
was no mention of the subsequent case in Crime No.211 of 2025 therein
and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority,
regarding the possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in one case
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: 06/11/2025 05:36:08 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: 06/11/2025 05:36:08 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.431/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 01.07.2025, is hereby set aside. The
detenue, viz., Vishalram, S/o.Vijayarangan aged about 26 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: 06/11/2025 05:36:08 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 Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home),
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
V-6, Kolathur Police Station,
Chennai.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1741 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 05:36:08 pm )
