HCP No. 312 of 2026 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 HCP No. 312 of 2026 Valarmathi W/o.Krishnamoorthi, ..Petitioner(s) Mother of detenu Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu Represented by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Avadi City. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal, Chennal 4. The Inspector of Police M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No. 180/TNPD/APC/2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Rajesh @ Plump Rajesh S/o.Krishnamoorthi aged about 27 years, who __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 312 of 2026 is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai as Goonda before this Honble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Vinoth For Respondent(s): Mr.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

The petitioner, the mother of the detenu Rajesh @ Plump Rajesh S/o.Krishnamoorthi aged about 27 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 06.12.2025 bearing proceedings No. 180/TNPD/APC/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]. 2. Heard 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 mind on the part of the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 312 of 2026 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 Kanniyapan and Others. 5. In 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 enlarged on bail is clearly vitiated. Therefore, the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged. __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 312 of 2026

6. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 06.12.2025 bearing reference No.180/TNPD/APC/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz., Rajesh @ Plump Rajesh, male, aged 27 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.) 13-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gpa __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 312 of 2026 To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Avadi City. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal, Chennal 4. The Inspector of Police M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Chennai. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9 6. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 312 of 2026 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. gpa HCP No. 312 of 2026 13-08-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP No. 312 of 2026 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 HCP No. 312 of 2026 Valarmathi W/o.Krishnamoorthi, ..Petitioner(s) Mother of detenu Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu Represented by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Avadi City. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal, Chennal 4. The Inspector of Police M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No. 180/TNPD/APC/2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Rajesh @ Plump Rajesh S/o.Krishnamoorthi aged about 27 years, who __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 312 of 2026 is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai as Goonda before this Honble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Vinoth For Respondent(s): Mr.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

The petitioner, the mother of the detenu Rajesh @ Plump Rajesh S/o.Krishnamoorthi aged about 27 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 06.12.2025 bearing proceedings No. 180/TNPD/APC/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]. 2. Heard 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 mind on the part of the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 312 of 2026 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 Kanniyapan and Others. 5. In 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 enlarged on bail is clearly vitiated. Therefore, the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged. __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 312 of 2026

6. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 06.12.2025 bearing reference No.180/TNPD/APC/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz., Rajesh @ Plump Rajesh, male, aged 27 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.) 13-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gpa __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 312 of 2026 To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Avadi City. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal, Chennal 4. The Inspector of Police M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Chennai. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9 6. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 312 of 2026 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. gpa HCP No. 312 of 2026 13-08-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis