Parveen Banu Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

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

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶15

4.The Inspector of Police, Law and order, S-2, Airport Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records from the 2^nd

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 8

¶18

H.C.P.No.76 of 2025

¶19

respondent in connection with order in BCDFGISSSV No.1209/2024 dated 10.12.2024 and quash the same and produce t he petitioner's husband namely Mohammed Yousu f, S/o.Iqbal, aged 38 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner

¶21

: Mrs.S.Nadhiya

¶22

For Respondents

¶23

: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J. )

¶26

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Mohammed Yousu f, aged about 38 years, S/o.Iqbal, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 10.12.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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].

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8

¶28

H.C.P.No.76 of 2025

¶29

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶30

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus her arguments on the ground that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1414/2021 dated 04.06.2021 and came to the conclusion that in a similar case bail has been granted and that there is a likelihood of the detenu also to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar, as the offences in the similar case are different than the detenu's case and therefore, there is a non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.

¶31

4. On a perusal of the Grounds of Detention and the booklet, it is seen that in the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.1414/2021 dated 04.06.202, the accused therein was enlarged on bail for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of NDPS Act. However, in the present case, the offences involved are under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, which are not similar to the

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8

¶33

H.C.P.No.76 of 2025

¶34

case relied upon by the Detaining Authority. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority suffers from non-application of mind, as the offences involved in the similar case is distinctive from the detenu's case. Hence, on the above ground, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.

¶35

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 paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

¶36

“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

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8

¶38

H.C.P.No.76 of 2025

¶39

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 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.

¶40

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. ”

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 8

¶44

H.C.P.No.76 of 2025

¶45

10.12.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.1209/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mohammed Yousuf, aged about 38 years, S/o.Iqbal, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless

¶46

his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶47

[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]

¶48

11.03.2025

¶49

(1/3)

¶50

Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶51

Sni