VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Mubarak Hussain v. The Principal Secretary to Government

ALLOWED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
14 July 2026
Bench
Anita Sumanth, Sunder Mohan
Case no.
HCP 187/2026

Judgment

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The detenu - A.Mubarak Hussain, aged 24 years, S/o.Abdul Haq, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 30.11.2025, branding him as a 'Cyber Law Offender' under Section 2(bb) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

¶2We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for respondents.

¶3The detention order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu is in remand and has not filed any bail application; that the sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file bail application; and that in a similar case, bail was granted to the co-accused by the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.10772 of 2025 on 06.11.2025.

¶4Admittedly, there was no material placed before the detaining authority that the detenu or his relatives were taking steps to file a bail application. In such circumstances, inference of the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to file a bail application and come out on bail is his mere ipse dixit.

¶5Further, it is seen that the order relied upon by the detaining authority in Crl.M.P.No.10772 of 2025 dated 06.11.2025, has not been furnished to the detenu and only the translated version has been furnished. In 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413', the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that non-supply of relevant documents to the detenu renders the detention illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶6In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No.163/2025 dated 30.11.2025, is set aside.

¶7The detenu, viz., A.Mubarak Hussain, aged 24 years, S/o.Abdul Haq, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 14-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Note: Issue order copy today. ars To

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

¶2The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.

¶4The Inspector of Police Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City.

¶5The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶6The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. HCPoNo.o187oofo2026 DR.ANITAoSUMANTH,oJ. AND SUNDERoMOHAN,oJ. ars HCPoNo.o187oofo2026 14-07-2026 Pageo6oofo6

Case details

Parties and counsel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Mubarak Hussain S/o.Abdul Haq, House No.2, Katiyadalang, Jalukbari, Khanamukh, Kamrup District Metro, Assam State. (Now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai) ..Petitioner/Detenu Vs 1. The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City. 3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai- 66. 4. The Inspector of Police Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City. ..Respondent(s) Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dt.30.11.2025 in Memo No. 163/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner namely Mubarak Hussain, male aged 24 years, S/o.Abdul Haq, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Ms.S.Rohini for Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.