Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28075 (MAD)

Saranya v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By

HCP/440/2026 · 2026-06-04

Anita Sumanth, Sunder Mohan

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:MHC:1898 HCP No.440 of 2026 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 440 of 2026 Saranya, W/o.Sivaraj, Residing at 2/100-Vayakkadu, Vaiyappamalai Via, Rasipuram TK, Namakkal District - 637 410. ..Petitioner/Wife of the detenu Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary to Government, Home, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department. Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) Room No.270, Rishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:1898 HCP No.440 of 2026 __________ 3. The District Magistrate and District Collector Namakkal District, Namakkal. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CSCID-Namakkal, Namakkal District. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. 6. The Inspector of Police, CSCID-Chennai, Erode Unit, incharge Namakkal Unit. ...Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in C.M.P.No.9/BLACK MARKETER/2026 [M1], dated 10.02.2026 (wrongly mentioned as 11.02.2026 in the petition) passed by the 3rd respondent (wrongly mentioned as 2nd respondent in the petition) under section 3(2)(a) r/w 3(1) of the prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980) and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce petitioner’s husband Sivaraj aged about 48 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthikeyan for Mr.K.Sakthivel For Respondents: Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R1, R3 to R6 No appearance for R2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:1898 HCP No.440 of 2026 __________ ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The wife of detenu - Sivaraj, S/o.Kaliyannan, aged about 48 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 10.02.2026, branding him as a ‘Black Marketeer’ under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [Central Act 7 of 1980]. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for respondents 1, 3 to 6. 3. Though several grounds have been raised, we are of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:1898 HCP No.440 of 2026 __________ 4. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu had filed the bail application in C.M.P.No.158 of 2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal, and the same is pending for hearing; that in a similar case, bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal in C.M.P.No.800 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024. 5. The detaining authority ought to have seen whether the facts in the bail order relied upon by him was comparable to the facts of the instant case. In the order relied upon by the detaining authority, the accused therein was granted bail because the quantity involved was 600 Kgs, whereas the offence in this case is graver as the quantity of PDS rice seized is huge (13454 Kgs of boiled ration rice and 26500 Kgs of broken rice). Therefore, the reliance placed by the detaining authority on the said order, vitiates his subjective satisfaction as regards the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:1898 HCP No.440 of 2026 __________ 6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the third respondent in C.M.P.No.9/Black Marketer/2026 [M1] dated 10.02.2026, is set aside. 7. The detenu, viz.,Sivaraj, S/o.Kaliyannan, aged about 48 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Salem, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 04-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Issue order copy today. dk To 1. The Secretary to Government Home, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600009. 2. The Additional Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs), https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:1898 HCP No.440 of 2026 __________ Room No.270, Rishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110001. 3. The District Magistrate And District Collector and, Namakkal District, Namakkal. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CSCID-Namakkal, Namakkal District. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. 6. The Inspector of Police, CSCID-Chennai, Erode Unit, incharge Namakkal Unit. 7. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 8. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:1898 HCP No.440 of 2026 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk HCP No. 440 of 2026 04-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis