Madras High Court
Suresh vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1449 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19-09-2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1449 of 2025
Suresh,
S/o Subramani ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By the Principal Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Tambaram City, Office of Commissioner of Police,
Sholinganallur,
Chennai – 600 119.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-22, Medavakkam Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call
for the records of the detention order passed by the second respondent in
BCDFGISSSV No.54/2025 dated 21.05.2025 against the petitioner's son
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )
H.C.P.No.1449 of 2025
and set aside the same and to produce the detenu, S.Ebinesar @ Ebi, aged
21 years, S/o Suresh, who is detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
before this Court and set him at liberty
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Arun Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu,J.
and
S.Sounthar,J
The petitioner is the father of the detenue, viz., S.Ebinesar @ Ebi,
aged 21 years, S/o Suresh, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV 54/2025 dated
21.05.2025, branding him as "Goonda" under 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] read with the order
issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.105 Home Prohibition and
Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 under sub section (2) of
section 3 of the said Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the
Detaining Authority.
3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the special
report furnished to the detenue is not dated. Hence, it is submitted that
the detenu was deprived of making effective representation and it would
vitiate the detention order.
4. It is seen from records that at Vol-I page 167, there is no date in
the special report furnished to the detenu. The compelling necessity to
detain the detenu would also depend on when the special report was
obtained. In the absence of the date, the compelling necessity to detain,
becomes questionable. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )
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. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
detention order passed by the second respondent
respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.54/2025 dated 21.05.2025 is hereby set
aside. The detenu, viz., S.Ebinesar @ Ebi, aged 21 years, S/o Suresh,
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.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)
19.09.2025
vsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )
To
1. The Principal Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Tambaram City, Office of Commissioner of Police,
Sholinganallur,
Chennai – 600 119.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-22, Medavakkam Police Station,
Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
vsi
19-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 03:01:29 pm )
