Detention orders lacking rational basis and subjective satisfaction from the Detaining Authority can be quashed, as established by Supreme Court precedent.

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

The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Karthick Bhimrao Koli, aged about 27 years, S/o.Bhimrao Koli, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 04.04.2025, 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].

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

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5203 of 2023 dated 03.11.2023 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 further submitted that the order relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar, as the offences in the similar case are different from the detenu's case and therefore, there is a non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.

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.5203 of 2023 dated 03.11.2023, the accused therein was enlarged on bail for the offences under Sections 24(1) of Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act 2003 and 328 of IPC. However, in the present case, the offence involved is under Section 123 of BNS Act, which is not similar to the 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.

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:-

“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 that if a co-accused has been granted bail and his case is on the same footing as that of the petitioner, then the petiti