Allowed

Sarathkumar v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC24 Jul 2025HCP/843/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 allowing a Habeas Corpus petition. The detention was based on a flawed subjective satisfaction that the detenu might secure bail in a similar case, which the Court found lacked application of mind.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 21.04.2025 (C.No.70/G/IS/2025) set aside; detenu K.Sabarith directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Sarathkumar Vs The Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

H.C.P.No.843 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.07.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

H.C.P.No.843 of 2025

Sarathkumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority Coimbatore City Coimbatore District

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison - Coimbatore Coimbatore District

¶14

4.State rep. by its The Inspector of Police VADAVALLI Police Station Coimbatore District ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus,

¶16

Page 1 of 8

¶17

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

¶18

H.C.P.No.843 of 2025

¶19

to call for the entire records, relating to the petitioner's brother detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 21.04.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent made in proceedings C.No.70/G/IS/ 2025, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's brother namely K.Sabarith, S/o.Kanagaraj, aged 34 years, before this Court and set the petitioner's brother at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's brother detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

ORDER

¶22

M.S.RAMESH, J. and

¶23

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶24

The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, viz. K.Sabarith,

¶25

aged about 34 years, S/o.Kanagaraj, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 21.04.2025 slapped on his brother, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

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

¶28

H.C.P.No.843 of 2025

¶29

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶30

3. Though several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by relying upon the bail order granted to the accused in a similar case, suffers from non-application of mind.

¶31

4. On a perusal, it is seen that in paragraph 6 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case since in a similar case i.e. in C.M.P.No.3942 of 2023, bail was granted to the accused therein on 15.11.2023. On a perusal of the said order, in page Nos.34 to 36 of the Booklet in Volume II, this Court finds that the said order relates to release of the accused on bail u/s.167[2] of Cr.P.C. and the bail was granted to the accused therein since he had been in prison for more than 90 days and not on merits. Therefore, it is not a similar case and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, regarding the Page 3 of 8

¶32

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

¶33

H.C.P.No.843 of 2025

¶34

possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind, which vitiates the detention order. Hence, on this 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 whether the case of the co-accused was on the same footing as the case of the petitioner, then,

¶37

Page 4 of 8

¶38

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

¶39

H.C.P.No.843 of 2025

¶40

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 coaccused 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.

¶41

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. ”

¶42

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.

¶43

7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second

¶44

Page 5 of 8

¶45

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

¶46

H.C.P.No.843 of 2025

¶47

respondent, in C.No.70/G/IS/2025 , dated 21.04.2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., K.Sabarith, aged about 34 years, S/o.Kanagaraj, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 24.07.2025

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

2.The Commissioner of Police /Detaining Authority Coimbatore City Coimbatore District

¶52

3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison - Coimbatore Coimbatore District

¶53

4.The Inspector of Police VADAVALLI Police Station Coimbatore District

¶54

Page 6 of 8

¶55

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

¶56

H.C.P.No.843 of 2025

¶57

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

¶58

Page 7 of 8

¶59

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

¶60

H.C.P.No.843 of 2025

¶61

M.S.RAMESH, J. and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

kas

H.C.P.No.843 of 2025

24.07.2025

Page 8 of 8

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

Sarathkumar v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarathkumar v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Kokila Vs the Addl. Chief Secretary

S.Vimala, Vs S.Sundaramoorthy

Aayasa Bibi Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

Tholan @ Govindasamy Vs The Secretary to the Government

Maheswari Vs The State Rep By The Secretary to Government

Kavitha Vs State Rep.by, The Principal Secretary to Government