Amutha v. Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, the mother of the detenu Ramanan, male, aged 22 years, S/o.Vargkis, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 03.12.2025 bearing reference No.1014/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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].

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents. Page3 of 6

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 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.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection with the ground case and four adverse cases and the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order has arrived at the subjective satisfaction regarding imminent possibility of coming out on bail by relying on a bail order dated 04.06.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.1414 of 2021 wherein bail was granted to one Vasu @ Vasudevan.

¶5In this regard, the learned counsel drew the attention this Court to order in Crl.M.P.No.1414 of 2021, which is enclosed at Page No. 131 of Volume II of the booklet. A careful perusal of the said order, brings to light that in the said case, there is no previous against the accused whereas in the instant case, there are four adverse cases against the detenu. Therefore, taking said bail order as a basis for arriving at subjective satisfaction regarding the imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail shows clear non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged. Page4 of 6

¶6In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 03.12.2025 in Memo No.1014/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz., Ramanan, male, aged 22 years, S/o.Vargkis, 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.) 13-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order gpa Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai - 600007.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

¶4The Inspector of Police, D-1 Triplicane Police Station, Tripllicane, Chennai.

¶5The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9

¶6The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. HCPoNo.o288oofo2026 N.SATHISHoKUMAR,oJ. AND K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. GPA HCPoNo.o288oofo2026 13-08-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Amutha W/o.Vargkis, ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai - 600007. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police, D-1 Triplicane Police Station, Tripllicane, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ and call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Detention Order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Order in No.1014/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 03-12-2025 by detaining the Page2 of 6 Ramanan/Detenue under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 as a GOONDA and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the Ramanan/Detenue, aged 22 years, son of Vargkis, who is detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Gowri Shankar For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.side)