Madras High CourtHCP/653/2025allowed

Issaki Thai v. The Additional Chief Secretary To The Government

2025-06-27Honourable Mr Justice M.S. Ramesh,Honourable Mr.Justice V. Lakshminarayanan8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P.No.653 of 2025 Issaki Thai Petitioner(s)/ wife of the detenue Vs

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City.

3.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison, Coimbatore.

4.The Inspector of Police C-6 Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore.

...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 2nd Respondent dated 11.03.2025 in C.No.25/G/IS/2025 against the petitioner's husband V.Murugan, aged 43 years, S/o.Vaikundam, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and to set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to produce the detenue before the Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh 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, V.Murugan, aged 43 years, S/o.Vaikundam, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 11.03.2025 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 the bail was granted in favour of the accused therein by recording the fact that the there was no previous case as against the accused therein.

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.3581 of 2024 dated 25.07.2024, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail after recording the fact that no previous case was reported against the accused therein. However, it is admitted that there are one adverse case and three previous cases as against the detenu herein. Considering the nature of the bail order in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the case on hand, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also

likely to be released on bail, 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 paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "10.

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 11.03.2025 in C.No.25/G/IS/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., V.Murugan, aged 43 years, S/o.Vaikundam, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, 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] 27.06.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Anu To