Gayathri v. The State Rep By Its Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Gayathri ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu Represented by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Mayiladuthurai District Mayiladuthurai 3.The Superintendent of Police Mayiladuthurai District Mayiladuthurai 4.The Superintendent Central Prison Cuddalore Cuddalore District 5.The Inspector of Police Perambur Police Station Tharangambadi Taluk Mayiladuthurai District ... Respondents

Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records made in C.O.C.No.10/2025 dated 10.03.2025 on the file of second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Rajkumar, Son of Radha, 34 years, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu viz., Rajkumar, Male, aged about 34 years, S/o.Radha, confined at Central prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 10.03.2025 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand 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 have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by relying upon the bail order granted to the accused in a similar case, suffers from non-application of mind.

4. On a perusal, it is seen that in paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case since in a similar case i.e. in C.M.P.No.570 of 2021, bail was granted to the accused therein. On a perusal of the said order, in page No.66 of the Booklet in Volume II, this Court finds that the said order relates to release of the accused on bail u/s.167[2] of Cr.P.C. and the bail was granted to the accused therein since he had been in prison for 90 days and not on merits. Therefore, it is not a similar case and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail

suffers from non-application of mind, which vitiates the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

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.

the normal practice of most courts that if a coaccused 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. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent, in C.O.C.No.10/2025, dated 10.03.2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Rajkumar,

aged about 34 years, S/o.Radha, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, 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.] 30.06.2025 kas Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking To 1.The Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Mayiladuthurai District Mayiladuthurai 3.The Superintendent of Police Mayiladuthurai District Mayiladuthurai 4.The Superintendent Central Prison Cuddalore Cuddalore District

5.The Inspector of Police Perambur Police Station Tharangambadi Taluk Mayiladuthurai District 6.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

kas 30.06.2025