HCP No. 496 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. 496 of 2026 Mrs.SINDHU W/o Anantharaj, No.27 N Block, Venkatapuram, Chinnamalai, Saidapet, Chennai-16. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 2. The Commissioner Of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66 4. The Inspector Of Police S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai District, Crime No.1146 and 1171 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ, or order, or direction, in the nature of the Writ calling for the records __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 496 of 2026 relating to the Detention order No.1058/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 passed by the second Respondent and quash the same and direct the Respondents heein to produce Petitioner husband namely ANATHARAJ Male/Aged about 42 years, S/o Dhanraj (who is now confined in Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai) before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr. V.Saravanan For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 14.12.2025 in proceedings No.1058/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 is sought to be quashed in this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. We 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. 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 __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 496 of 2026 the petitioner confined his argument only with regard to non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the impugned order of detention. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has been remanded to judicial custody in connection with ground case and he has not moved any bail application and therefore, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the near future. However, the detaining authority after quoting that the detenu has not filed any bail application, but by relying on the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennain in Crl.M.P.No.20525 of 2024, dated 29.07.2024 to the accused concerned, has come to the conclusion that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. 5.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit submits that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. 6.Considering the submissions made by both sides, this court is of the considered view that there is non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order. Admittedly, in the ground case, no bail application has been filed by the detenu or by his relatives __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 496 of 2026 so far. If that be so, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail would be mere ipse dixit and that would vitiate the order of detention. It is a trite law that when no bail application is pending, it is only a logical conclusion that there is no likelihood of the person in custody would be released on bail. There are no materials available to show that a bail application is being moved, on behalf of the detenu, either by his relatives or by any other person, to take him out on bail. Thus, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Therefore, the conclusion of the detaining authority that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail shows his non application of mind while passing the detention order. In such view of the matter, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. 7.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention bearing No.1058/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 14.12.2025 is set aside. The detenu, namely Anantharaj, male, aged 42 years, S/o Dhanraj, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention 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 MST __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 496 of 2026 To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 2. The Commissioner Of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai District. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66 4. The Inspector Of Police S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai District. 5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 496 of 2026 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. MST HCP No. 496 of 2026 13-08-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis