Madras High Court
Amudha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 26 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1445 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.1445 of 2025
Amudha
W/o Murugan ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
its Principal Secretary,
Home,Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai- 600 007
3. The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai - 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
R-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station,
Chennai District. ... 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 BCDFGISSV
No.429/2025 dated 01.07.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
H.C.P.No.1445 of 2025
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenu, Selvaraj, aged 26 years, S/o Murugan,
who is presently confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before
this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Santhosh
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu,J.
and
S.Sounthar,J
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, viz., Selvaraj, aged 26
years, S/o Murugan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai,
has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSV No.429/2025 dated
01.07.2025, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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 sub section (2) of section 3 of
the said Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 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 statement
of the relative of the detenu furnished to the detenu is not dated. Hence,
it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation and it would vitiate the detention order.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly submit
that there is no date in the statement obtained from the relative of the
detenue.
5.It is seen from records that at Vol-I page 122, there is no date in
the statement of the relative 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 suspect. 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.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Rekha Vs. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
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 sustain the detention
order and has to be ignored.
11.In our opinion, the detention order in
question only contains ipse dixit regarding the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
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
respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.429/2025 dated 01.07.2025 is hereby
set aside. The detenu, viz.,Selvaraj, aged 26 years, S/o Murugan, 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.)
vsi 26.09.2025
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
1. The Principal Secretary,
Home,Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai- 600 007
3. The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai - 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
R-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station,
Chennai District.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
vsi
26-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
