P.Parimala v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.07.2025 CORAM :

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

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

4.The Inspector of Police, T-9 Pattabiram Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the

detenu's detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.59/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 05.04.2025 and set aside the same and produce the detenu namely Praveenkumar, Male, aged about 21 years, S/o.Parandaman, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Dhanasekar For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J.) The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Praveenkumar, aged about 21 years, S/o.Parandaman, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 05.04.2025, issued against her son, 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, as well as 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 bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the case on hand, by referring to the fact that bail was granted to the accused therein mainly on the ground that the co-accused was granted bail. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted 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.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that, in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, i.e., Crl.M.P.No.18385 of 2021, dated 21.10.2021, the accused therein was granted bail mainly on the ground that the co-accused had been granted bail. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail, by relying upon the aforesaid similar case, 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 paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "10.

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 on 05.04.2025 in No.59/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the

Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Praveenkumar, aged about 21 years, S/o.Parandaman, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 10.07.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Sni

To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

4.The Inspector of Police, T-9 Pattabiram Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

6.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law & Order), Chennai - 600 009.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

Sni 10.07.2025