Nathiya v. Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

Order

in Page2 of 6 Memo.No.980/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 24.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioners husband Sivakumar S/o Muthuraj aged about 22 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Amarnath For Respondent(s): Mr.Mohamed Riyaz Governemnt Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The order of detention passed by the second respondent in Memo.No.980/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 24.11.2025 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶2We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents. We have also perused the records submitted by the detaining authority.

3.Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument only with regard to non-application of Page3 of 6 mind on the part of the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction regarding imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail while passing the impugned order of detention.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction of detenu being released on bail based on the bail granted in the case of one Vigneswaran in Crl.O.P.No.26012 of 2024, but the facts of the said case is totally different.

¶5The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Page No.106 of Volume II of the booklet wherein vide order 21.10.2024 bail was granted to one Vigneswaran in Crl.O.P.No.26012 of 2024. A careful perusal of the said order, brings to light that the facts of the said case is totally different as that of the instant case. In the similar case, there is no previous case for the accused whereas in the instant case, there are three adverse cases. Therefore, taking the said bail order as the basis for arriving at subjective satisfaction regarding the imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is clearly vitiated. Therefore, the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged.

¶6In the result, the detention order passed by the 2 nd respondent in Memo.No.980/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 24.11.2025 is hereby set aside and Page4 of 6 the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sivakumar, S/o. Muthuraj, Male aged about 22 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 14-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SSI To:

¶1Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶4The Inspector Of Police T-5, Vanagaram Police Station, Chennai. Page5 of 6

¶5The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. HCPoNo.o142oofo2026 N.SATHISHoKUMAR,oJ. AND K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. SSI HCPoNo.o142oofo2026 14-08-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Nathiya W/o Sivakumar, No.51, Shanmugarayan Street, Broadway Theatre, Chennai 600 001. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600009. 2. The Commissioner of Police The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector Of Police T-5, Vanagaram Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the Detention