Madras High Court

R.Lalitha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 September, 2025

Author: J.Nisha Banu

Bench: J. Nisha Banu

H.C.P.No.1395 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-09-2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

H.C.P.No.1395 of 2025

R.Lalitha
W/o Ramesh @ Mint Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section), Vepery,
Chennai - 600 007.

3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4. The Inspector of Police,
Law & Order,
M-3, Puzhal 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 relating to the detention order in Memo
No.417/BCDFGISSSV/ 2025 dated 27.06.2025 and set aside the same

Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 02:51:04 pm )
H.C.P.No.1395 of 2025

and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband, Mint
Ramesh @ Ramesh, S/o Mani aged about 52 years, the detenue, now
confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this court and set him at
liberty
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Velmurugan

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J.Nisha Banu,J.

and S.Sounthar,J

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, viz., Mint Ramesh @

Ramesh, S/o Mani, aged 52 years, who is confined at Central Prison,

Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention

order passed by the second respondent in No.417/BCDFGISSSV/ 2025

dated 27.06.2025, 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.97 Home Prohibition and Excise

(XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 under section 3(2) of the aforesaid

Act.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 02:51:04 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 the petition, the learned

counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Detaining Authority has not

applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction that the

detenu is also likely to be released on bail. It is his submission that the

case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, is not similar to the present

case, as the bail was granted in favour of the accused therein on the

ground that there was one previous case, but in the present case, the

detenu is having four previous cases.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also state that the

similar case relied upon by the detaining authority is not a similar one.

5. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that in Vol.II, Page

150-151 furnished by the detaining authority to the detenu, the bail order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 02:51:04 pm )

passed in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, in

C.M.P.No.5181 of 2023, dated 11.12.2023, is not similar to the case on

hand, since the accused therein was released on bail mainly on the ground

that there was only one previous case against the said accused, but in the

present case, the detenue is having four previous cases. Therefore, this

Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is

irrational and the detention order is liable to quashed on the ground of

non-application of mind.

6. 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. In the instant

case, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction

that the detenu is likely to be released on bail by referring to a bail order

granted to the accused in a similar case, wherein, the said bail was

granted mainly by citing Covid-19 Pandemic. Therefore, the subjective

satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 02:51:04 pm )

released on bail suffers from non-application of mind. 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 paragraphs No.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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 02:51:04 pm )

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.'' 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 in

No.417/BCDFGISSSV/ 2025 dated 27.06.2025 is hereby set aside. The

detenu, viz., Mint Ramesh @ Ramesh, S/o Mani, aged about 52 years,

who is now confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore, 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.)
                     vsi                                         26.09.2025


                     To

                     1. The Secretary,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 02:51:04 pm )

Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4. The Inspector of Police, Law & Order, M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Chennai

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 02:51:04 pm )

J. NISHA BANU, J.

and S. SOUNTHAR, J.

vsi

26-09-2025