Allowed¶49

Velu v. Government of Tamilnadu Rep by Its

Madras HC14 Mar 2025HCP/146/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

H.C.P.No.146 of 2025; Madras High Court; habeas corpus petition; Article 226; preventive detention; Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982; Goonda; detention order No.814/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 05.08.2024; Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Police; Central Prison-II Puzhal; detenue Saravanan s/o Velu; non-application of mind; subjective satisfaction; likelihood of release on bail; similar case Crl.M.P.No.20525 of 2024; ipse dixit; Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu 2011 [5] SCC 244; detention order set aside/quashed; detenue set at liberty forthwith; advocates A.Vijayasankar, R.Muniyapparaj (APP), M.Sylvester John; decided 14.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Detention order No.814/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 05.08.2024 set aside; detenue Saravanan (male, Age 25, S/o.Velu) directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

Velu Vs Government of Tamilnadu Rep by Its — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the Detaining Authority applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction that the detenu was also likely to be released on bail. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

On a perusal of the Booklet, the offences charged against the accused in Crl.M.P.No.20525 of 2024 are not similar to the case on hand; considering the nature of the bail order in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the case on hand, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail suffers from non-application of mind.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Following the ratio in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 [5] SCC 244), where 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 order of detention is liable to be quashed.

¶36

Key takeaways

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, the detention order is liable to be quashed.ratio¶44
The detention order passed by the second respondent in No.814/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 05.08.2024 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed; the detenu Saravanan, male, Age 25, S/o.Velu, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Preventive detention / Habeas Corpus — Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982] ('Goonda') — Detention order No.814/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 05.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai (second respondent) against detenue Saravanan (male, Age 25, S/o.Velu), confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal — challenged by the detenue's father under Article 226 — Held: the offences in the 'similar case' (bail in Crl.M.P.No.20525 of 2024) relied upon by the Detaining Authority were not similar to the case on hand; consequently the subjective satisfaction that the detenu was also likely to be released on bail suffered from non-application of mind — following Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2011 [5] SCC 244 (mere ipse dixit regarding alleged imminent possibility of release on bail cannot sustain a detention order), the Division Bench (M.S. Ramesh and N. Senthilkumar, JJ.) set aside the detention order, allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition and directed the detenue to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. (Judgment dated 14.03.2025.)

¶1

H.C.P.No.146 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.03.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶8

H.C.P.No.146 of 2025

¶9

VELU

¶10

... Petitioner / father of the detenue

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Government Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its Addl. Chief Secretary To Govt., Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Chennai - 600009.

¶13

2.The Commissioner Of Police Greater Chennai Police, Chennai - 600 004.

¶14

3.The Inspector Of Police V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai - 600 054.

¶15

4.The Superintendent Of Police Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 8

¶19

H.C.P.No.146 of 2025

¶20

Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records culminating in the passing of the order of detention the petitioner's Son of the detenue under Act 1982 as GOONDAS vide detention order in No.814/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 05.08.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein to produce the body and person of the detenue by name Saravanan, male, Age 25, S/o.Velu, before the this Court and set him at liberty from detention, now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

M.S.RAMESH, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR.J,

¶24

The petitioner herein is the father of the detenue viz., Saravanan, male, Age 25, S/o.Velu, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 05.08.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber

¶25

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

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

H.C.P.No.146 of 2025

¶28

law offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶29

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

¶30

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶31

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 offences charged as against the accused in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority are different compared to the case on hand.

¶32

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the offences charged against the accused in Crl.M.P.No.20525 of 2024 are not similar to the case on hand. Considering the nature of the bail order in the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the case on hand, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority

¶33

that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail, suffers from nonhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8

¶34

H.C.P.No.146 of 2025

¶35

application of mind.

¶36

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:-

¶37

“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 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

¶38

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

¶39

Page 4 of 8

¶40

H.C.P.No.146 of 2025

¶41

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.

¶42

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. ”

¶43

6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶44

and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶45

7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.814/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 05.08.2024, is hereby

¶46

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

¶47

Page 5 of 8

¶48

H.C.P.No.146 of 2025