IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.11.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN H.C.P.No.1144 of 2025 Jothi ... Petitioner/Detenue's Wife -vs-

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakka, Namakkal District.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, Namakkal District.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-Salem, Salem District.

5. The State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 10.06.2025 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein made in proceedings in C.M.P.No.59/Sexual Offender/2025/(M1) quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband, namely, Nehru, S/o.Palanisamy, aged 35 years before this Honble High Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention now the petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison Salem.

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Addl. Public Prosecutor *****

O R D E R

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenue, namely, Nehru, S/o.Palanisamy, aged 35 years, detained at Central Prison, Salem, has come forward with this petition, challenging the detention order dated 10.06.2025, passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.59/Sexual Offender/2025/(M1), branding him as a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual 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 are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the bail order relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.340 of 2020 dated 03.09.2020 is not similar to the case on hand. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly state that the similar case relied upon by the detaining authority is not a similar one, as Charge Sheet had already been filed in that case. 5. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that in Page No.6 of the Volume-II, the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crl.M.P.No.340 of 2020, dated 03.09.2020 is not similar to the case on hand. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenue is also likely to be released on bail, by relying upon the aforesaid similar case, suffers from non-application of mind.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another reported in 2011 [5] SCC 244, has dealt with a situation where the Detention Order is passed without an application of mind. In case any of the reasons stated in the order of detention is non-existent or a material information is wrongly assumed, that will vitiate the Detention Order. In the instant case, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is likely to be released on bail by referring to a bail order granted to an accused in a similar case in Cr.M.P.No.1358 of 2023. However, the said bail was granted on the ground that