Rani v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, the mother of the detenu Muthaiyan, male, aged 22, S/o.Kannan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 03.12.2025 bearing reference No.1007/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" 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 two 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 19.09.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.26094 of 2024 wherein bail was granted to one Gokul Raj and another.

¶5In this regard, the learned counsel drew the attention this Court to order in Crl.M.P.No.26094 of 2024, which is enclosed at Page No. 173 of Volume II of the booklet. A careful perusal of the said order, brings to light that in the said case, there is only one previous against the accused whereas in the instant case, there are two 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 Page4 of 6 mind. Therefore, the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged.

¶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.1007/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz., Muthaiyan, male, aged 22, 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, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

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

¶4The Inspector of Police, Law and Order V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai.

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

¶6The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. HCPoNo.o292oofo2026 N.SATHISHoKUMAR,oJ. AND K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. gpa HCPoNo.o292oofo2026 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 Rani W/o.Kannan, ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State of TamilNadu, Rep. By The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police, Law and Order V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ of direction calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.1007/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 03.12.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and Page2 of 6 direct the respondent to Produce the petitioners son MUTHAIYAN, S/o.KANNAN, aged about 22 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioners son MUTHAIYAN, S/O.KANNAN, aged about 22 years the detenue, herein at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.side)