Thenmozhi vs The Principal Secretary To
2025 Latest Caselaw 7385 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7385 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 September, 2025

Madras High Court

Thenmozhi vs The Principal Secretary To on 23 September, 2025

Author: J. Nisha Banu

Bench: J. Nisha Banu

HCP No. 1292 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

H.C.P No. 1292 of 2025

1. Thenmozhi
W/o.Suresh, No.5715, Tamil Nadu
Housing Board, Semmancherry,
Chennai - 600 119.

Petitioner(s)

1. The Principal Secretary to
Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Secretariat, Fort
St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tambaram City, Office of the
Commissioner of Police,
Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600
066.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 04:19:10 pm )
HCP No. 1292 of 2025

4.State rep. by its,
The Inspector of Police, Semmancherry
Police Station, Chennai.

Respondent(s)

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 entire records,
relating to the petitioners husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982
vide detention order dated 24.05.2025 on the file of the second respondent
herein made in proceedings Memo in BCDFGISSSV No.58/2025, quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the
petitioners husband namely R.Suresh, S/o.Ramesh, aged 27 years before this
Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty.

For Petitioner(s): Ms. S.Vedavalli

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J. NISHA BANU, J.

and S. SOUNTHAR, J.

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely, R.Suresh,

aged 27 years, S/o.Ramesh, has come forward with this petition challenging the

detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.05.2025 slapped on

her husband, 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 04:19:10 pm )

Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of

1982].

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 subjective satisfaction

of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to

take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the Special

Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel

raised a bona fide doubt as to the date on which the Special Report was sent by

the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel

further pointed out that, unless the Special Report of 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 these

undated documents, would vitiate the Detention Order.

4. It is seen from the records that in Page Nos.147 and 149 of the

Volume-I, the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated. When

the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority is not dated, the veracity of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 04:19:10 pm )

Report becomes doubtful. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would

also depend on when the Sponsoring Authority has sent his Report. Hence, this

Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining

Authority based on such undated materials, 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 04:19:10 pm )

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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on

24.05.2025 in BCDFGISSSV No.58/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas

Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., R.Suresh, aged 27 years,

S/o.Ramesh, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set

at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

(J.NISHA BANU J.)( S.SOUNTHAR J.) 23-09-2025 ASI

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 04:19:10 pm )

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.