Murugeswari v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-08-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN HCP(MD) No.1561 of 2024 Murugeswari W/o.Murugesh, Azhagiripuram, Kurichi, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District Petitioner Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government State of Tamil nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison Palayamkotti Central Prison, Tirunelveli.
Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in M.H.S.Confdl No.199/2024 dated 18.11.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Murugesh, S/o.Dhanushkodi aged about 29 years, detained as "Goonda" at Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani 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, Murugesh, aged 29 years, S/o.Dhanushkodi confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 18.11.2024 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 to the accused therein on the ground that the co-accused had been granted bail.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-II, this Court finds that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19503 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail on the ground that the co-accused had been granted bail. Therefore, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is irrational and the detention order is liable to
quashed on the ground of 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 18.11.2024 in M.H.S.Confdl No.199/2024, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Murugesh, aged 29 years, S/o.Dhanushkodi confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. No costs.
[M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 13.08.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vum To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government State of Tamil nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison Palayamkotti Central Prison, Tirunelveli.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J.
vum
13.08.2025 (6/7)