Madras High Court
Mrs.M.Mariamma vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 17 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1383 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1383 of 2025
Mrs.M.Mariamma ... Petitioner/Mother of detenue
-vs-
1. The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Commissioner Office, Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
3. The Inspector of Police,
W-13, All Women Police Station,
Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order
of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 15.05.2025 vide Order in
Memo No.256/BCDFGISSSV/2025 against the Petitioner's son, Madhan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 06:34:15 pm )
H.C.P.No.1383 of 2025
Kumar, aged about 35 years, S/o.Mahadevan, who is confined at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the 2nd
respondent to produce the detenue before this Court thereby setting him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shankar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, namely
Madhan Kumar, S/o.Mahadevan aged about 35 years, detained at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order dated 15.05.2025, passed by the second respondent in
Memo No.256/BCDFGISSSV/2025, branding him as a "Sexual Offender",
as contemplated under Section 2 (ggg) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 06:34:15 pm )
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the
learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that a relative of the
detenu is taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-
application of mind, as the statement under 180 (iii) of BNSS, said to have
been made by the detenu's relative before the Sponsoring Authority, is not
dated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt
as to when this statement was obtained from the detenue's relative. The
learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the statement relied upon by
the Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detention Order, it may
not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority based on this undated statement, would vitiate the Detention
Order.
4. It is seen from records that the statement obtained by the
Sponsoring Authority from the detenu's relative, enclosed in the Booklet at
Pg.No.103 of Vol.I stating that she is planning to file a bail application to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 06:34:15 pm )
bring out the detenu on bail, is not dated. On a perusal of the Grounds of
Detention, it is seen that, in Para No.4, the Detaining Authority has
observed that the Sponsoring Authority has stated that he came to
understand that the relative of the detenu is taking steps to take him out on
bail by filing bail application before the appropriate Court and has arrived at
the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail.
When the statement obtained by the Sponsoring Authority from the relative
of the detenu stating that she is planning to file bail application to bring out
the detenu on bail is not dated, the veracity of such statement becomes
doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would also depend
on when the statement was obtained. In the absence of the date, the
compelling necessity to detain, becomes suspicious. Hence, this Court is of
the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on
such undated material, suffers from non-application of mind.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 06:34:15 pm )
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: 23/09/2025 06:34:15 pm )
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, the Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in
Memo No.256/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 15.05.2025, is hereby set aside.
The detenu, viz., Madhan Kumar, S/o.Mahadevan, aged 35 years, who is
now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is hereby directed to
be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with
any other case.
(J.N.B.J.,) (S.S,J.,)
17.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 06:34:15 pm )
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Commissioner Office, Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
3. The Inspector of Police,
W-13, All Women Police Station,
Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 06:34:15 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ar
17.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 06:34:15 pm )
