HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL HCP No. 2714 of 2025 1. Neelima W/o Varaaki, Aged about 46 years, Door no.19, D1 Block,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-12-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
HCP No. 2714 of 2025
1. Neelima
W/o Varaaki,
Aged about 46 years,
Door no.19, D1 Block,
Taisha Apartments, Natesan Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai City Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Puzhal – II, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police
R4 Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station, Chennai.
Crime No.280 of 2025
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To issue Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ and call for the records relating to the detention order No.1001/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 03.12.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the body of the detenue Mr.Varaaki, S/o Radhakrishnan, aged 51 years now detained in Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Arun Anbumani
for Mr.P.Rajkumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.Vikas Singh Senior Advocate for Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Under assail in the present Habeas Corpus Petition is the detention order dated 03.12.2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City.
2. The husband of the petitioner has been clamped under 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 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 14 of 1982”) and detained as
“Sexual Offender”.
3. The present Habeas Corpus Petition came to be listed for admission on 26.12.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the husband of the petitioner is a Youtube journalist, more specifically investigative journalist, raises dissenting voices against the executives and politicians in the State of Tamil Nadu. He is running a Youtube channel. His personal liberty is curtailed by the police authorities with an ulterior motive to make him silent and thus, the matter is to be heard urgently.
4. This Court on 26.12.2025, recorded that “Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for the respondents. Post on 30.12.2025. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is directed to get instructions by then”.
5. The matter is taken up for hearing today i.e., 30.12.2025. On behalf of the State and by representing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appeared and raised preliminary objections that the Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable. Notice has not been issued to the respondents to file counter. Under Rule 24(2) of the Writ Rules of Madras High Court, eight weeks time should be given to the respondents to file counter. Therefore, sufficient time is to be granted to file counter in the present case.
6. This Court elaborately heard Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel for the petitioner at the first instance and gone through the records made available.
7. Since the personal liberty of a person is being curtailed, which is a fundamental right enunciated and ensured under the Constitution of India, any illegal detention cannot be allowed to go on, if it is found to be contrary to law or issued on extraneous consideration.
8. In the above backdrop and after hearing the parties, this Court examined the documents and passed the following orders.
9. The respondents detained the husband of the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982 relying on 5 adverse cases and a ground case. Five Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.31418, 31419, 31425, 31426 & 31429/2024 had been instituted and the learned Single Judge of this Court passed a final order on 13.02.2025, transferring all 5 cases to CBCID Wing of the Police Department for investigation.
10. Ground case for detention has been registered in Crime No.280/2025 dated 28.11.2025. The said case was registered under Sections 74, 79, 296(b) and 359(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of Tamilnadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002. Perusal of the First information Report would show that it is a landlord tenant dispute and the petitioner, her husband along with their family members are the tenants. The landlord asked the husband of the petitioner to vacate the premises and he has not only refused, but used abusive language against the landlord which resulted in the filing of the criminal case, and the said case is the ground case in the impugned detention order.
11. Remand order has been passed by the learned XVII Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the remand order dated 30.11.2025 would show that “Accused produced before me on 30.11.2025 at 9.35 p.m at Remand Room, Egmore. Produced by Mr.Mukesh Rao, Inspector of Police. The grounds of arrest, right of bail, free legal aid are explained to the accused and served to the accused by this court.” Relying on the remand order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that grounds of arrest were not intimated to the accused by the Investigating officer at the first instance. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharastra and Another1. In paragraph 56(i) of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held that the “The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including the offences under IPC

1 2025 INSC 1288
1860 (now BNS 2023). (ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands.” Further direction would also show that the grounds of arrest must be intimated by the
Investigating Officer at the time of arrest.
12. Yet another criminal case has been registered after the ground case in Crime No.281/2025 dated 02.12.2025. The said criminal case was given by Mr.Pakkir Maideen. Earlier, wife of Mr.Pakkir Maideen had given a complaint in respect of Crime No.280/2025 dated 28.11.2025 which is the ground case. Therefore, the 1st complaint was given by the wife of Pakkir Maideen, namely Ameenal Beve and the second complaint was given by Pakkir Maideen
himself.
13. Perusal of the First Information Report clearly reveal that it is a landlord tenant dispute, which normally would have been resolved by approaching the Rent Control Court. Only by incorporating certain abusive languages, provisions of criminal law have been incorporated in the FIR. In the present case, the said case registered in Crime No.280/2025 dated 28.11.2025 has been taken as the ground case for the purpose of detaining the husband of the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982.
14. Yet another ground raised by the petitioner is that he has submitted
a representation to the Principal Secretary to Government on 12.12.2025, which was forwarded by the Prison Authority to the Government only on 15.12.2025 and received on 16.12.2025. To prove the said ground, the tracking report of the Postal Department has been enclosed. Government, though declined to approve the detention order in respect of the husband of the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, which was dealt with by this Court in HCP.No.2527 of 2024, in the present case, the Government has not considered the representation merely on the ground that the representation had not reached the Government within a period of 12 days as contemplated under the Act. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaseela Shaji Vs. Union of India and Others2 has been relied upon. In paragraph Nos. 66 and 69 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
“….
66. Firstly, we find that the Superintendent of the Central Prison and Correctional Home has acted in a thoroughly callous and casual manner. In spite of there being catena of judgments by this Court that it is the duty of the transmitting authorities to transmit the representation of the detenu promptly and it is the corresponding duty of the authorities concerned to consider the said representation and to decide it swiftly, the same has been followed only in breach in the present matter.
…

2 2024 9 SCC 53
69. The jail authorities ought to have ensured that the representation of the detenu reaches the authorities concerned at the earliest. In the present era of technological advancement, the jail authorities could have very well sent the copies of the representation to the detaining/appropriate authority either by email or at least a physical copy could have been sent by Speed Post (acknowledgment due) so that there could have been some evidence of the said being sent to the competent authority and could have been tracked.”
15. In respect of criminal cases, which were transferred to CBCID by the learned Single Judge of this Court in order dated 13.02.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.31418 etc., of 2024, the learned Judge made observations as under:
“…
11….all the cases were foisted as against the petitioner in order to detain him in the prison, though he was released on bail by the order of Court. All the cases were registered by the second respondent viz., The Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB, Vepery, Chennai.
…
17. Thus, it is clear that in order to prevent the petitioner from his activities, with malafide intention, the respondents 1 and 2 had foisted a false case as against the petitioner that too within a short span of time.”
16. This observations of the learned Single Judge made while transferring the cases to CBCID for investigation cannot be brushed aside by this Court.
17. The ground for detention made by Commissioner of Police, Chennai would show that on 28.11.2025, at about 20.00 hours, the complainant along with her husband went to their above house at No.23, Mantra Apartments, North Boag Road, T.Nagar and told the accused Thiru.Varaki that they would return the advance money and asked him to vacate their above house.
18. Mr.Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel would rely on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the A.Kamala Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, dated 18.07.2024 in SLP (Crl).No.8706-8707 of 2024. However, even in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
reiterated that:
“Consequently, as an interim measure till a decision is taken on the merits of the preventive detention order under challenge before the High Court, we direct that the detenue be released on an interim bail forthwith, on two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to be submitted before the High Court.”
19. Regarding the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus Petition,
Mr.Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel would rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee3. He would contend that, what is under challenge is the detention order and not the remand order. Therefore, the Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable. That apart, sufficient time is to be granted for the State to file counter.
20. In the present case, the detention order issued under Act 14 of 1982 is under challenge and that being the case, the ground that remand order has not been challenged, is unacceptable.
21. Further, it is submitted by the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner is an investigative journalist and running a Youtube channel. It is stated that he is raising dissenting voice against Government activities and exposing certain corrupt activities in the Government department. Another ground raised is that the police authorities, being not in a position to tolerate such dissenting views are registering criminal cases one after another on flimsy grounds and finally clamped the husband of the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982 as a “sexual offender”.

3 2018 9 SCC 745
22. Here, it is necessary to examine the scope of detention under Act 14 of 1982. The statement of objects is extracted hereunder:
“As the sexual offences against women are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Government have announced a 13 point action plan, which included a proposal to bring sexual offenders within the purview of preventive detention 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 (Tamil Nadu Act of 1982). Accordingly, it has been decided to amend the said Tamil Nadu Act of 1982 so as to bring sexual offenders within ambit of the Act.”
23. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner has been detained as “sexual offender” for the alleged commission of sexual offence whereby the accused Thiru.Varaki scolded the complainant in filthy language and threatened her by uttering certain abusive words. The said ground has been relied upon for the purpose of detaining the husband of the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982.
24. Section 2(1)(a) of Act 14 of 1982 defines “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”.
25. Sub-clause (iv-B) of Section 2 states that “in the case of a sexualoffender, when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a sexual-offender, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order.”
26. Sub-clause (ggg) of Section 2 defines “sexual-offender” means a person, who commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any offence punishable under sections 354, 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D or
377 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1860) or the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 44 of 1998) or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Central Act 32 of
2012);]
27. Section 3 confers “Power to make orders detaining certain persons with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do make an order directing that such person be detained.”
28. Public order has been well defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar and Another4, which reads as under:

4 1965 SCC OnLine SC 9
“….54. We have here a case of detention under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules which permits apprehension and detention of a person likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It follows that if such a person is not detained public disorder is the apprehended result. Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but disorder is a broad spectrum which includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most serious and cataclysmic happenings. Does the expression “public order- take in every kind of disorder or only some ? The answer to this serves to distinguish “public order“ from “law and order“ because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise communal passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are. A District Magistrate is entitled to take action under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances.
….
55. It will thus appear that just as “public order” in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting “security of State”, “law and order” also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting “public order”. One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State. By using the expression “maintenance of law and order” the District Magistrate was widening his own field of action and was adding a clause to the Defence of India Rules.”
29. In the case of Vaddi Lakshmi Vs. State of Telangana and Others5, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the case of sexual offence stated as follows,
“6. We have considered the matter in detail.

5 2024 17 SCC 231
We are of the opinion that invocation of Section 3 of the 1986 Act is not justified as mere involvement in a sexual offence, including one under Section 376D, by itself will not be sufficient to invoke Section 3 of the 1986 Act. This is for the reason that the offence must be integrally connected ‘with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’. It is not decipherable from the order of Detaining Authority coupled with the grounds of detention, or from the Confirmation Order dated 09.08.2023, how the offence is connected to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
7. Apart from the fact that there is no justification for invoking the provisions of the 1986 Act, we are also of the opinion that these are solitary instances. In fact, the allegation of rape on 01.05.2023 was only in addition to the earlier allegation of extortion dated 27.04.2023. These are solitary instances of allegations of extortion and rape. There is no material before the Detaining Authority to indicate that the detenu is in the habit of committing the same offence yet again. In the absence of any material of this nature, there is absolutely no justification for the order dated 30.06.2023. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the order of detention dated 30.06.2023, coupled with its confirmation, are not sustainable.”
30. In the case of Mallada D.Sri Ram Vs. State of Telangana and Others6, the Hon’ble Apex Court relying on the earlier rulings, reiterated the principles as follows,
“15. A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the “maintenance of public order”. In this case, the apprehension of a disturbance to public order owing to a crime that was reported over seven months prior to the detention order has no basis in fact. The apprehension of an adverse impact to public order is a mere surmise of the detaining authority, especially when there have been no reports of unrest since the detenu was released on bail on 8-1-2021 and detained with effect from 26-62021. The nature of the allegations against the detenu are grave. However, the personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive detention merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding. The powers of preventive detention are exceptional and even draconian. Tracing their origin to the colonial era, they have been continued with strict constitutional safeguards against abuse. Article 22 of the
Constitution was specifically inserted and extensively debated in the Constituent Assembly to ensure that the exceptional powers of preventive detention do not devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise of State authority. The case at hand is a clear example

6 2023 13 SCC 537
of non-application of mind to material circumstances having a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The two FIRs which were registered against the detenu are capable of being dealt by the ordinary course of criminal law.
16. We also note that after notice was issued by this Court, the respondents have been served. No counter-affidavit has been filed. We have declined to allow any further adjournment for filing a counteraffidavit since a detailed and comprehensive counteraffidavit which was filed before the High Court is already on the record and the present proceedings have been argued on the basis of the material as it stood before the High Court. The liberty of the citizen cannot be left to the lethargy of and the delays on the part of the State.”
31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dhanya.M. Vs. State of Kerala7 and in the case of Annu @ Aniket through his father as next friend Krupal Sing Thakur vs. Union of India8 reiterated the legal principles ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in previous judgments.
32. Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of india, in the case of
Magesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union oof India & Anr.9 held in the opening

7 2025 INSC 809
8 Crl.Appeal No.2920 of 2025 dated 27.06.2025
9 2025 INSC 1476
paragraph as follows:
2. Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State may, where statute so provides, regulate or restrain that freedom in the interests of justice, security or public order but such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law. When procedural safeguards are converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into indefinite exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the dignity of the individual is disturbed, and the promise of the Constitution is put at risk.
33. Constitutional Courts shall never stifle or attempt to strangulate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Spirit of Article 19(1)(a) shall be ever evolving and the reasonable restrictions shall also shift its shape to stay in tune with Article 19(1)(a). The vision of our Law Makers is to ensure free voice for all and that shall be protected under the Constitution and by the Constitutional Courts. If the State Machinery starts hunting down each and every views and opinion, the voices will neither be brought down nor will this yield any viable result. The beauty of our democracy lies in the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom and when the State Machinery themselves starts stifling with litigations, the people lose a faith in the democracy. As far as the modernday social media activities are concerned, no doubt it is to be regulated in accordance with law, and in the event of any violation, appropriate actions are to be initiated. But filing criminal case after criminal case and clamping such journalists or you-tubers under Act 14 of 1982, at no circumstances be allowed by the Constitutional Courts, since it will directly infringe the fundamental rights ensured under the Constitution of India.
34. In the present case, Mr.Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the State would request to grant eight weeks time to file counter placing reliance on Rule 24(2) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules. But this Court strongly believes that, when personal liberty of a person is infringed , the constitutional Courts are not expected to be lenient or wait for a longer period until the state file counter. An illegal detention can never be allowed to continue since the right of personal liberty is a vital fundamental right ensured under the Constitution of India to citizens. In such circumstances, High Court is expected to exercise its powers conferred under Article 226 of the constitution of India for grant of interim bail to the detenu. The detention laws cannot be used to settle political scores or silence the dissenting voices.
35. In the State of Tamil Nadu, hundreds and hundreds of preventive detention orders are issued by the executive authorities. Numerous Habeas Corpus Petitions are filed and pending. The High Court is not in a position to dispose of those petitions quickly. The State seeks repeated adjournments for filing counter resulted, most of the Habeas Corpus Petitions are taken up for hearing during fag end of the period of expiry of detention orders. Thus, the institution of Habeas Corpus Petitions by the detenues became frustrated and meaningless, since they are unable to secure any relief. The practical difficulty prevailing in the High Court in dealing with the Habeas Corpus Petitions has been taken undue advantage by the detaining authorities/police authorities as they are aware that disposal of petitions will take several months and till such time, persons can be detained under preventive detention laws. Allowing the detaining authorities/ police authorities to develop such thought process in their mind cannot be appreciated.
36. Preventive detention laws are draconian. Power vests with the executive authorities to impose imprisonment. Thus, power to detain a person is to be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution. Failure on the part of the detaining authorities/police authorities to exercise the power of detention in good faith must be viewed seriously by the courts. Any callousness, motive, extraneous consideration, settle political scores or silent the dissenting voice if established on facts and through documents, the detaining authorities/police authorities concerned should be subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the State under the relevant Service Rules. The State is not expected to approve the detention orders in a routine manner.
37. Power of preventive detention is exercised without trial. The Government shall not approve the detention orders in a routine manner. Application of mind, scrutinisation of relevant factors are of paramount importance to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The State being the custodian of citizens must exercise the power of preventive detention with extreme care. Personal liberty is not a concession given by State. It is the duty mandated on the State under Constitution. Thus, failure to protect the personal liberty of the citizen by the State would result in unconstitutionality. An aggrieved person is empowered to sue the State and its authorities for appropriate relief under law including claiming of damages.
38. Preventive detention laws are anti-thesis to fundamental rights enunciated under Part III of the Constitution . Misuse of power result in infringement of fundamental rights shall not be viewed lightly by the Government and Courts. Relief providing mechanisms contemplated under law are expected to act swiftly. Speedy disposal of Habeas Corpus Petitions on personal liberty/fundamental right by itself is a basic right of citizen under the Constitution of India. Cases touching upon the fundamental rights are to be heard on priority basis to ensure speedy disposal.
39. In view of the above legal position and considering the fact that
there is no sufficient ground to detain the husband of the petitioner under Act
14 of 1982 and considering the arguments as advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Vikas Singh that time is to be granted for filing counter, this Court finds it fit to release the petitioner’s husband/ detenu, namely, Mr.Varaki, S/o Radhakrishnan, aged 51 years on interim bail for a period of twelve weeks
from 31.12.2025 in connection with the detention order No.1001/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 03.12.2025 forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case and he shall surrender before the Prison Authority on or before 30.03.2026 on the following terms and conditions:
i) The petitioner’s husband / detenu shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) before the
Superintendent of Prison;
ii) On execution of such bond, the detenu namely, Mr.Varaki shall
be released on interim bail forthwith;
iii) The petitioner’s husband / detenu shall not leave the Country
without the permission of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court;
iv) The petitioner’s husband / detenu shall not interact with any of
the witnesses or make any attempt to hamper or tamper the witnesses involved in the criminal cases
v) The petitioner’s husband shall inform his place and address of
residence with the Investigation Officer and cooperate for investigation;
vi) A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent of Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai for information and necessary compliance to release the detenu forthwith;
vii) The grant of interim bail will not be treated as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the criminal cases.
(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(P.DHANABAL J.)
30-12-2025
vsi/gd
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Note: (i) Registry is directed to communicate this order by email and ensure that the detenu is released from the Prison forthwith.
(ii) Registry is directed to issue order copy by today i.e., 31.12.2025.
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai City Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal – II, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police
R4 Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police
Station, Chennai. Crime NO.280 of
2025
5.Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. 
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
P.DHANABAL J.
vsi/gd
HCP No. 2714 of 2025

30-12-2025