Dhanalakshmi v. The Secretary to Government

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, the mother of the detenu Prathap, S/o.Selvam, male, aged 21 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 04.12.2025 bearing reference C.M.P.No.98/Goonda/Salem City/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 one adverse case and the detaining authority, while passing the impugned detention order, arrived at the subjective satisfaction regarding imminent possibility of coming out on bail by relying on a bail order dated 16.11.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.24833 of 2023 wherein bail was granted by this Court to one Kanniyappan and Others.

¶5In this regard, the learned counsel drew the attention this Court to said order in Crl.O.P.No.24833 of 2023, which is enclosed at Page No. 19 of Volume II of the booklet. A careful perusal of the said order, brings to light that the said case is totally different as that of the instant case as there is no previous case against the said accused and the detenu in the instant case has got one adverse case. Therefore, taking the said bail order as a basis for arriving at subjective satisfaction regarding the imminent possibility of detenu being Page4 of 6 enlarged on bail is clearly vitiated. 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 04.12.2025 in C.M.P.No.98/Goonda/Salem City/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz., Prathap, aged 21 years, male, S/o.Selvam, 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 Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai – 600 099

¶2The Commissioner Salem City Salem District

¶3The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison – Salem Salem District

¶4The Inspector of Police Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem District

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

¶6The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. HCPoNo.o317oofo2026 N.SATHISHoKUMAR,oJ. AND K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. gpa HCPoNo.o317oofo2026 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 Dhanalakshmi W/o.Selvam ..Petitioner(s)/ Mother of the Detenue Vs 1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai – 600 099 2. The Commissioner Salem City Salem District 3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison – Salem Salem District 4. State rep. By its The Inspector of Police Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem District ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ of direction to call for the entire records, relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 04.12.2025 on the file of the second Page2 of 6 respondent herein made in proceedings C.M.P.No.98/Goonda/Salem City/2025 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Prathap, S/o.Selvam, aged 21 years before this Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son detained at Central Prison, Salem. For Petitioner(s): Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent(s): Mr.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.side)