ORDER :

1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz. Sai Sudhahar @ Sudhahar S/o Muthaiyan aged about 41 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in PD No.50/2025 dated 07.10.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Apart from the other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was urged is that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that no bail petition was pending as on the date of passing of the detention order and the detaining authority took into consideration an order dated 24.05.2023 that was passed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9486/2023 by this Court and came to a conclusion that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned counsel submitted that the order that was relied upon by the detaining authority is not a similar case and hence, without any cogent materials such subjective satisfaction was arrived at which reflects non application of mind.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India through Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), Ministry of Finance New Delhi v. Ankit Ashok Jalan,  2020 (16) SCC 185 and placed specific reliance upon Paragraph No.15 of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder:

“15. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Rekha and T.V. Sravanan by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenus is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, the aforesaid decisions shall not be of any assistance to the detenus and/or, as such, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Even in the case of Rekha, the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Shaw was not placed before the Court for consideration and therefore this Court had no occasion to consider the said decision. It is also required to be noted that even after considering the decision of this Court in the case of Rekha, which has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenus, in the case of Dimpy Happy Dhakad, this Court has observed that even if a person is in judicial custody, he can be put on a preventive detention provided there must be an application of mind by the Detaining Authority that (i) the order of detention validly can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show whether the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in custody; (ii) that the Detaining Authority must be further satisfied that the detenu is likely to be released from custody and the nature of activities of the detenu indicate that if he is released, he is likely to indulge in such prejudicial activities and therefore, it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities; and (iii) the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail and on being released, he is likely to indulge in the same prejudicial activities with the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.”

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Dimple Happy Dhakad,  2019 (20) SCC 609 and placed specific reliance upon Paragraph No.33 to 39 of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder:

“30. It is well settled that the order of detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose, it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show t