B.Manjula Vs The Addl.Chief Secretary to Government

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.218/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 22.04.2025 to detain the detenue under Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, cyber law offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and video pirates act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with orders issued by the Government in G.O.(D) No.97, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 as a GOONDA and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Vivek, son of Balasubramaniam, aged about 23 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Silambarasan For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

¶23

ORDER

¶24

M.S.RAMESH, J. and

¶25

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶26

The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, Vivek, son of Balasubramaniam, aged about 23 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed

¶27

Page 2 of 8

¶28

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

¶29

HCP.No.881 of 2025

¶30

by the second respondent dated 22.04.2025 issued against 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 Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶31

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

¶32

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶33

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 in that case, bail was granted by this Court considering the facts, particularly that the offence was committed due to sudden provocation.

¶34

4. On a perusal of the Booklet in Volume-II, this Court finds that the

¶35

bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.O.P.No.30749 of

¶36

Page 3 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

HCP.No.881 of 2025

¶39

2024 dated 10.12.2024, is not similar to the case on hand, since the accused therein was granted bail by this Court considering the facts, particularly that the offence was committed due to sudden provocation. 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 nonapplication of mind.

¶40

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:-

¶41

“10. In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in

¶42

Page 4 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

HCP.No.881 of 2025

¶45

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 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.

¶46

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. ”

¶47

Page 5 of 8

¶48

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

¶49

HCP.No.881 of 2025

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 22.04.2025 in No.218/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vivek, son of Balasubramaniam, aged about 23 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶53

[M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J] 25.07.2025

¶54

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

¶55

Page 6 of 8

¶56

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

¶57

HCP.No.881 of 2025

¶58

To