Porbavai v. The State Rep By, Its Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN H.C.P.No.2004 of 2025 Porbavai ... Petitioner/ W/o.Rajendiran Mother of the detenu
Versus
1.
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.
The District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore District, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore District, Vellore - 9.
3.
The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District.
4.
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.
5.
The Inspector of Police, Latheri Police Station, Vellore District, Crime No.104 of 2025.
.. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records C3/D.O.No.34/2025/C2 dated 10.09.2025 on the file of the 2 nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce petitioner's son Thiru.Sathish, Aged 35 years, S/o.Rajendiran, who is now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Silambuselvan For Respondents :
Mr.R.Munniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Sathish, S/o.Rajendiran, male, aged 35 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 10.09.2025 bearing reference C3/D.O.No.34/2025, slapped on her son Sathish, S/o.Rajendiran, male, aged 35 years, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore 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. Amidst several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument only with regard to non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction regarding imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail while passing the impugned order of detention.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has been remanded to judicial custody in connection with ground case and three adverse cases. At the time of passing the detention order, the detenu has not moved any bail application in respect of those cases and therefore, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the near future. However, the detaining authority after quoting that the detenu has not filed
any bail application in the ground case, but by relying on a case registered in Crime No.496 of 2024 on the file of the V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 109(1), 351(3) of BNS, wherein bail has been granted to the accused Gokul Raj and Surya Prakash in Crl.M.P.No.26094 of 2024, has come to the conclusion that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit submits that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court is of the considered view that there is non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order. Admittedly, in the
ground case and three adverse cases, no bail application has been filed by the detenu or by his relatives so far. If that be so, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail would be mere ipse dixit and that would vitiate the order of detention. It is a trite law that when no bail application is pending, it is only a logical conclusion that there is no likelihood of the person in custody would be released on bail. There are no materials available to show that a bail application is being moved, on behalf of the detenu, either by his relatives or by any other person, to take him out on bail. Thus, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Therefore, the conclusion of the detaining authority that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail shows his non application of mind while passing the detention order. In such view of the matter, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the 2 nd respondent dated 10.09.2025 in
C3/D.O.No.34/2025 is hereby quashed and the detenu Sathish, S/o.Rajendiran, male, aged 35 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [P.V.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 09.12.2025 Index: Yes/No ms To 1.
The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.
The District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore District, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore District, Vellore - 9.
3.
The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District.
4.
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.
5.
The Inspector of Police, Latheri Police Station, Vellore District.
6.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
P.VELMURUGAN , J., AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J., ms H.C.P.No.2004 of 2025
09.12.2025