Madras High Court
HCP/329/2026 of HARI NADAR ALIAS HARI Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government on 28 September 2026
HCP No. 329 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
HCP No. 329 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010363832026}
Hari Nadar Alias Hari
S/o.Arunachalam Nadar,
No.2/56, Nadar Sangam Street,
Mela Ilanthai Kulam, Maanur Taluk,
Thirunelveli - 627951.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Beta-10, Forgery Investigation Wing,
Chennai Central Crime Branch.
..Respondent(s)
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records relating to the
HCP No. 329 of 2026
detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in No.26/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 dated 22.01.2026 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a GOONDA and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Hari Nadar @ Hari, son of Arunachalam Nadar, aged about 42 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Senthilvel
for Mr.J.William Shakesphere
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the detenu Hari Nadar @ Hari, son of Arunachalam Nadar, aged about 42 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 22.01.2026 bearing reference Memo No.26/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 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].
HCP No. 329 of 2026
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 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 two adverse cases and the bail application moved by the detenu in respect of the ground case is pending and therefore, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the near future. However, 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 in Crl.M.P.No.13833 of 2025.
5. In this regard, the learned counsel drew the attention this Court to the order in Crl.M.P.No.13833 of 2025, which is enclosed at Page No.121 of Volume II of the booklet. A perusal of the said order shows that the facts of
HCP No. 329 of 2026
that case are entirely different and not similar in nature and that apart, there are twenty previous cases pending against the detenu herein. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority regarding the imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail shows clear non- application of mind. Therefore, the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 22.01.2026 in Memo No.26/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 is hereby set aside and the detenu viz. Hari Nadar @ Hari, son of Arunachalam Nadar, aged about 42 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.) 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsd
HCP No. 329 of 2026
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police, Beta-10, Forgery Investigation Wing, Chennai Central Crime Branch.
5. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order, Public Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
HCP No. 329 of 2026
N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. nsd HCP No. 329 of 2026 28-09-2026