Selvi v. Additional Chief Secretary To The Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Selvi Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,Chennai - 600009.

2.The Commissioner of Police,, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector Of Police L & O, R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station, Chennai. Respondent(s) PRAYER This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS calling for records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.462 of 2025 dated 07.07.2025 against the petitioners son Deepakkumar @ Seemakaalai, Male, aged about 29, S/o Murugesan and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu who is detained under the Tamil Nadu

Act 14 of 1982 currently confined the Cetral Prison, Puzhal before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. S.Senthilvel for Mr.G.Pandian For Respondent(s):

Mr. A.Gokulakrishnan, Addl. Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, viz., Deepakkumar @ Seemakaalai, aged 29 years, S/o. Murugesan, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.462/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 07.07.2025, slapped on her son, branding the detenu 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. 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 the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.20525 of 2024 dated 29.07.2024 is not similar to the case on hand. 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. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly state that the similar case relied upon by the detaining authority is not a similar one.

5. It is seen from the records that in Page No.187 & 188 of Volume-II of the booklet, this Court finds that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority, in Crl.M.P.No.20525 of 2024 dated 29.07.2024 is not similar to the case on hand. The bail was granted to the accused therein on the ground that since the period for taking custodial interrogation was over, the accused therein was granted statutory bail. However, it is not so in the case on hand. 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.

6. 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.

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."

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 07.07.2025 in No.462/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Deepakkumar @ Seemakalai, S/o. Murugesan, aged 29 years, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.) 10-11-2025 2/2 Speaking/Non-speaking order mrp

To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,Chennai - 600009.

2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector Of Police L & O, E-4 Abiramapuram Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN J.

mrp 2/2 10-11-2025