Sagaya Mary v. The Principal Secretary to the Government,

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.173/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 13.12.2025 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶2We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents. We have also perused the records submitted by the detaining authority.

¶3Though 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-Page3 of 6 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.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction of detenu being released on bail based on the bail granted in the case of one Parthiban in Crl.M.P.No.3675 of 2025, but the facts of the said case is totally different.

¶5The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Page No.261 of Volume II of the booklet wherein vide order 03.12.2025 bail was granted to one Parthiban in Crl.M.P.No.3675 of 2025. A careful perusal of the said order, brings to light that the facts of the said case is totally different as that of the instant case. In the similar case, there is no previous case for the accused whereas in the instant case, there are more previous cases. Therefore, taking the said bail order as the basis for arriving at subjective satisfaction regarding the imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is clearly vitiated. Therefore, the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged.

¶6In the result, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.173/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 13.12.2025 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thiru S.Santhosh, Page4 of 6 S/o.Senthil, Male, aged about 22 years, 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.) 14-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order ssi/ stn Note to Office: Registry to communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, forthwith. Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City.

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

¶4The Inspector of Police T-15, Kanagi Nagar Police Station, Chennai District. Page6 of 6

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND

K.RAJASEKAR, J. ssi/ stn 14-08-2026

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Sagaya Mary W/o.Senthil, No.80, Bojaraja Nagar, 2nd Street, 3rd Lane, Old Washermanpet, Chennai - 600 021. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal-II, Chennai District. 4. The Inspector of Police, T-15, Kanagi Nagar Police Station, Chennai District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with the No.173/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 13.12.2025 the file of the Respondent No.2 and Quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the person of Petitioner son one named Thiru S.Santhosh, S/o.Senthil, aged about 22 years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal before this Honble Page2 of 6 Court and set him at liberty forthwith and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice. For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s): Mr. P. Muthamizh Selvakumar Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *******