Irudhaiya Meri v. The State of Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, the mother of the detenu Aravind, male aged 31 years, S/o.Kuselan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 12.12.2025 bearing reference No.1053/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 slapped on him, 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.

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 5 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 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. 106 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 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 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 12.12.2025 bearing reference Page4 of 5 No.1053/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz., Aravind, male, aged 31 years, S/o.Kuselan, 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 To

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

¶2The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.

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

¶4The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, N-1 Royapuram police station, Chennai.

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

¶6The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. HCPoNo.o345oofo2026 N.SATHISHoKUMAR,oJ. AND K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. gpa HCPoNo.o345oofo2026 13-08-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 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 Irudhaiya Meri W/o.kuselan, ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, N-1 Royapuram police station, chennai. ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or order in the nature of writ to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 12.12.2025 in No.1053/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner's son namely Thiru.Aravind, male aged 31 years, S/o.Kuselan, who is confined at central prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty and pass Page2 of 5 such further or other orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.side)