[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Nagakanni vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its Secretary ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
H.C.P.No.1914 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.04.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1914 of 2025
Nagakanni, F/A-65 years,
W/o. Thangam,
No.89, MGR Tittu, Tsunami,
Quarters, Killai R.F.,
Cuddalore – 608 102. .. Petitioner
vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Cuddalore. .. Respondents
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.1914 of 2025
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the 2 nd
respondent in C3/D.O./97/2025 dated 04.08.2025 and set aside the same
and direct the 2nd respondent to produce, the detenu T.Emaiyavarman, son
of Thangam, aged 25 years, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Ms.N.Premalatha
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by
Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
(Made by Sunder Mohan, J.)
The mother of the detenu-Emaiyavarman, branded as ‘Sexual
Offender’ under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, has
filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 04.08.2025.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. The detention order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground
that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the
possibility of the detenu coming out of bail is vitiated as the facts in the
order relied upon by the detaining authority is not similar to the facts of
the ground case in respect of the detenu.
4. On a perusal of the order relied upon the detaining authority, we
find that the accused therein was charged for the offences under Sections
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5(m), 5(l) read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012, whereas in the instant case, the detenu was charged for the
offences under Sections 83 and 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Section 5 (l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. Hence, we find that the case is not similar and
consequently, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining
authority that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is
vitiated.
5. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition
is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in
C3/D.O.97/2025 dated 04.08.2025 is set aside.
6. The detenu, viz., Emaiyavarman, son of Thangam, aged 25
years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, 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.]
16.04.2026
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
sl
Note to Registry : Issue Today
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
sl
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Cuddalore.
6.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
16.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
