(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Habeus Corpus calling for the entire records in Detention order in P.D.O.No.7 of 2025 dated 22.02.2025 passed by the second respondent against the petitioner's husband namely Rasu(55/2026) son of Raman and quash the  same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu who is detained and confined at Trichy Central Prison and set him at liberty forthwith.)

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. The prayer in the petition is to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in P.D.O.No.7 of 2025 dated 22.02.2025 and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu who is detained and confined at Trichy Central Prison and set him at liberty forthwith.

2. The petitioner is none other than the wife of the detenu. Challenging the very same detention order she already filed HCP(MD) No.426 of 2025 and raised the following grounds:

                  a. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent without looking into the material placed before him, mechanically passed the order of detention against the detenue.

                  b. It is submitted that the order of approval of detention order was not at all served to the detenue and the petitioner claims doubt whether the detention is approved or not.

                  c. It is submitted that there is no material to show that the activities of the detenue is prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982.

                  d. It is submitted that the petitioner sent a representation dated 24.03.2025 to the 1 respondent and the said representation was neither considered nor rejected till date and the 1st respondent have violated the article 22 (5) of Constitution of India and this itself will vitiates the detention order.

                  e. It is submitted that in the grounds it has been stated that, in paragraphs No. 5.

                  5. I am aware that the Thiru. Rasu who is in remand in Pudukottai District Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department Cr.No. 01/2025. He has not filed any bail petition for this case so far. In a similar case in K.Pudupatti Police Station Cr.No. 12/2024 u/s 174 Code of Criminal Procedure @ 302, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 bail was granted to the accused Mohanraj in 37 days, who was remanded on 15.10.2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, dated 21.02.2024. Hence, I infer that there is a real possibility of his (Rasu) coming out on bail by filing bail petition before the appropriate court for the above case. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order. Further the resourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order this itself show clearly non application mind of the detaining authority.

                  f. It is submitted that the English version of the grounds of detention has not been properly translated in the tamil grounds of detention supplied to the detenue and it is important to note that even the copy of post mortem report was not translated and supplied to the detenue along with the grounds of detention. which itself vitiates the detention order.

                  g It is submitted that the family members of the detenue were not intimated either by the detaining authority or by the sponsoring authority which itself against the constitution of India and will vitiates the detention order.

                  h. It is submitted that there are illegible copies in the booklet furnished to the detenue and in particular Booklet No.1 pg.No.23,24,22 and 45 are illegible copies and there by prevented the detenue from making effective representation to the Advisory board and to the Government.

                  i. It is submitted that the remand extension order for the period of 06.02.2025 to 20.02.2025 was not placed before the detaining authority. However the detaining authority stated in the grounds of detention that the remand period has been extended till 20.02.2025, but no material was placed before the detaining authority for arriving satisfaction for the subsisting custody of the detenue within the said interval, this itself goes to show that the detaining authority mechanically passed detention order without looking into the materials placed before him.

                   j. It is submitted that in the grounds of detention in the adverse cases detail in S.No.2, instead of Thirumayam police station it has been wrongly mentioned as Annavasal police station and the same was also not considered by the detaining authority simple without going through the materials placed before him passed the detention order mechanically.

3. All the above grounds were considered by this Court and the HCP(MD) No.426 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court by a common order dated 28.10.2025 along with other HCP petitions. Thereafter one of the detenu challenged the order passed by this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and he succeeded and the detention order was quashed.

4. Now the petitioner has filed the second Habeus Corpus Petition challenging the very same detention order which was upheld by this Court on the ground that the detention order of the co-detenu was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore the present petition is maintainable.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in HCP.No.2006 of 2014 in the case of S.Sekar .vs the State of Tamil Nadu and three others in which this Court relied upon the earlier judgment of this court reported in 1999 (1)MWN(Cr.)10 in the case of P.Sugunan .vs. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai and held that the petitioner can agitate a fresh ground in the second petition though available to him, on the earlier occasion, not taken, but goes to the root of the matter as the liberty of a citizen has been curtailed under the provisions of preventive law and therefore the second petition is maintainable.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1981)2 SCC 427 in the case of Shri Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India and others, wherein it is held as follows:

                  13. The position that emerges from a survey of the above decisions is that the application of the doctrine of constructive res judicata is confined to civil actions and civil proceedings. This principle of public policy is entirely inapplicable to illegal detention and does not bar a subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution on fresh grounds, which were not taken in the earlier petition for the same relief.

                  14. In the present petition fresh additional grounds have been taken, to challenge the legality of the continued detention of the detenu. We would therefore hold that the subsequent writ petition is not barred as res judicata and over-rule the preliminary objection raised by the respondents.

7. Thus it is clear that the detenu can agitate fresh ground on the second petition though available to him on the earlier occasion not taken. In the case on hand, as stated above, all the grounds raised by the petitioner before this Court, while challenging the detention order dated 28.10.2025, were considered by this Court and the petition was dismissed by an order dated 28.10.2025.

8. Now in order to maintain the present second Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner raised only one ground that the co-detenu's detention order was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore no other ground was very much available to the detenu while filing earlier Habeus Corpus Petition in HCP(MD) No.426 of 2026. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to entertain the second Habeas Corpus petition as maintainable.

9. In view of the same, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable.