H.Uma v. The State of Tamil Nadu

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.63/BBCDFGISSSV/2026 dated 07.02.2026 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-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 Hariharan in Crl.M.P.No.11940 of Page3 of 4 2024, but the facts of the said case is totally different.

¶5The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Page No.66 of Part II of the booklet wherein vide order 11.11.2024 bail was granted to one Hariharan in Crl.M.P.No.11940 of 2024. 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 one 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.63/BBCDFGISSSV/2026, dated 07.02.2026 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sanjay @ Vellai Sanjay, S/o Harikrishnan aged about 24 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.) 20-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order stn Page4 of 4

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND

K.RAJASEKAR, J. stn Note to Office : Registry to communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai, forthwith. To

¶1The State of Tamil Nadu The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Department of Prohibiton and excise (Home), Fort St George Chennai 600 009.

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

¶3The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai

¶4The Inspector of Police F-1 Chindatripet Police Station Chennai 20-08-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR H. Uma W/o.Harikrishnan, No.266/53, Navalar Neduchezhiyan Nagar Chindatripet, Chennai - 02 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Department of Prohibiton and excise (Home), Fort St George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Vepery Chennai - 600 007 3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police F-1 Chindatripet Police Station, Chennai. ..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 records in No.63/BBCDFGISSSV/2026, dated 07.02.2026 on the file of second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenue Sanjay @ Vellai Sanjay S/o Harikrishnan, aged about 24 years, who confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai before this Honourable Court and set him at Liberty. Page2 of 4 For Petitioner(s): Mr. Ilayaraja Kandasamy For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ******