Allowed¶55

Uma v. State Rep by

Madras HC3 Feb 2025HCP/100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court HCP 100 of 2025 (03.02.2025, M.S. Ramesh and N. Senthilkumar JJ): preventive detention qua 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 quashed for non-application of mind; Detaining Authority's satisfaction that detenue likely to be released on bail based on dissimilar similar-case bail order (Crl.M.P.No.2267 of 2021); ipse dixit / likelihood-of-bail ground unsustainable; Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu 2011 [5] SCC 244 applied; detenue Sabari Vijay released from Central Prison Coimbatore unless required otherwise; writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 allowed.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 27.11.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.103/GOONDA/2024 set aside; detenu Sabari Vijay, M/25 years S/o. Karuppasamy, confined at Central Prison Coimbatore, directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case.

Uma Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail - founded on a similar case whose bail order was dissimilar (bail having been granted mainly because the co-accused got bail) - suffers from non-application of mind, vitiating the detention order.

¶41

Court's answer

The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail, arrived at by relying upon the aforesaid similar case, suffers from non-application of mind.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (in Rekha) and in view of the aforesaid facts, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Petition by the mother of the detenue, Sabari Vijay (25 years), detained as a '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], pursuant to a detention order dated 27.11.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.103/GOONDA/2024 passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Tirupur. The Court found that the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction that the detenue was likely to be released on bail rested on a dissimilar bail order (Crl.M.P.No.2267 of 2021, where bail had been granted mainly because the co-accused was granted bail), and therefore suffered from non-application of mind. Applying the ratio of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another, 2011 [5] SCC 244, the Division Bench set aside the detention order, allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition, and directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

¶1

HCP.No.100 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.02.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶8

H.C.P.No.100 of 2025

¶9

UMA

¶10

W/o. Karuppasamy, No.4/83, Karvadi, Tirunellipatti Post, Marugapuri Taluk, Trichy.

¶11

Petitioner(s) /mother of the detenue

¶12

¶13

1.State Rep By

¶14

The Secretary To The Government, Home Prohibition And Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶15

The District Magistrate And District Collector Tirupur, Tiruppur District.

¶16

The Superintendent Of Police Tirupur, Tiruppur District.

¶17

The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶18

State Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kangeyam Police Station, Tirupur.

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

Page 1 of 8

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

HCP.No.100 of 2025

¶23

PRAYER:

¶24

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 27.11.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.103/GOONDA/2024 against the petitioner son Sabari Vijay M/25 years S/o. Karuppasamy who is confined at Central Prison Coimbatore and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶26

ORDER

¶27

M.S.RAMESH, J. and

¶28

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶29

The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, Sabari Vijay M/25 years, S/o. Karuppasamy, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 27.11.2024 slapped on 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

¶30

Page 2 of 8

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

HCP.No.100 of 2025

¶33

Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶34

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶35

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.2267 of 2021, the accused therein was granted bail mainly on the ground that the coaccused had been granted bail. This apart, the detenue has got four adverse cases and two previous cases. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also

¶38

Page 3 of 8

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

HCP.No.100 of 2025

¶41

likely to be released on bail, by relying upon the aforesaid similar case, suffers from non-application of mind.

¶42

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Rekha Vs. State of

¶43

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:-

¶44

“10. In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in similar cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application number, whether the bail order was passed in respect of the co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the co-accused was on the same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of

¶45

Page 4 of 8

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

HCP.No.100 of 2025

¶48

course, it could be argued that there is likelihood of the accused being released on bail, because it is the 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.

¶49

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. ”

¶50

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.

¶51

Page 5 of 8

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

HCP.No.100 of 2025

¶54

7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent

¶55

on 27.11.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.103/GOONDA/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sabari Vijay, M/25 years S/o. Karuppasamy, confined at Central Prison Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶56

[M.S.R., J] [N.S., J] 03.02.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Anu To

¶57

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

¶58