Sumathi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Sumathi W/o.Prabhakaran, No.11, North Street, Vanniyankadu, Thalavaipuram, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District Petitioner(s) Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City 3.The Inspector of Police T-6, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Chennai 4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai Respondent(s)
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to petitioner's husband's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 26.06.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.75/2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein to produce the said petitioner's husband viz. Prabakaran, aged 42 years, son on Muthu, before this Court and set him at liberty, now petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M.Mohammed Saifulla for Mr.C.C.Chellappan For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(made by N.Sathish Kumar, J.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Prabakaran, aged 42 years, son on Muthu, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 26.06.2025 bearing BCDFGISSSV No.75/2025 slapped on her husband, 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].
2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 nonapplication 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 three adverse cases and the bail application moved by the detenu is
pending and therefore, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the near future. However, 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 in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2024.
5.
In this regard, the learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the order in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2024, which is enclosed at Page No.137 of Volume I of the booklet. A careful perusal of the said order, brings to light that bail was granted for non-filing of final report, whereas, bail petition is admittedly pending in this case. Therefore, taking a such 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.
6.
Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit submits that the order of
detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. 7.
Considering the submissions made by both sides, this court is of the considered view that there is non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order. In such view of the matter, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 26.06.2025 in BCDFGISSSV No.75/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu Prabakaran, aged 42 years, son on Muthu, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.) 28.10.2025 nsd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City 3.The Inspector of Police T-6, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Chennai 4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
nsd 28.10.2025