Madras High CourtHCP/439/2025allowed

Revathi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,

2025-06-12Honourable Mr Justice M.S. Ramesh,Honourable Mr.Justice V. Lakshminarayanan8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.439 of 2025 REVATHI Petitioner(s)/ wife of the detenue Vs

1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

2.The Commissioner Of Police Greater Chennai.

3.The Superintendent Of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector Of Police S-7 Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai.

...Respondent(s)

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 second respondent dated 01.02.2025 in No.54/BCDFGISSSV/2025 against petitioner's husband Dilip, aged about 30 years, son of Shankar, confined at Central prison Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Illiyas For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J.

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu, Dilip, aged about 30 years, son of Shankar, confined at Central prison Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 01.02.2025 issued against 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

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 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

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 bail was granted to the accused therein on the ground that the injured had been discharged from the hospital.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.26094 of 2024 dated 19.09.2024, is not similar to the case on hand, as bail was granted to the accused therein on the ground that the injured had been discharged from the hospital. 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.

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 paragraphs 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."

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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 01.02.2025 in No.54/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Dilip, aged about 30 years, son of Shankar, confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

[M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 12.06.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Anu To