Muruganandham v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep.By The Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 06.01.2026 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN --- Muruganandham .. Petitioner Vs.

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur

3. The Superintendent of Police Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur

4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai

5. The Inspector of Police B-6, Mappedu Police Station Tiruvallur District .. Respondents Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the detention order No.B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V. No.13/2025, order dated 12.07.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct 1 / 5

the respondents to produce the detenue Akash, son of Muruganandham, aged about 19 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal at Chennai and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arul For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

ORDER

(The Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the detention order No.B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V. No.13/2025 dated 12.07.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Akash S/o.Muruganandham, aged about 19 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal at Chennai and set him at liberty.

2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner took several grounds to quash the impugned order of detention, he focused mainly on the ground of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention while arriving at the subjective satisfaction under which the detenu has been detained in the ground case, which has adversely affected the detenu's right of making an effective representation. He would submit that the Section of offence has not been properly mentioned in the detention order. Further, in the English version of the bail petition filed by the accused in the similar case referred to by the detaining authority, the date is 2 / 5

mentioned as 30th June 2020, whereas in the Tamil version it is mentioned as 30.06.2021.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that due to motive rival groups attacked each other, in which one person died and since the detenu involved in the serious crime, the detention order was passed.

4. A reading of the materials and the order passed by the detaining authority shows non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention and thereby, prevented the detenu from giving effective representation. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the detention order.

5. Accordingly, the order of detention passed in No.B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V. No.13/2025 dated 12.07.2025 by the second respondent against the detenu Akash aged about 19 years S/o.Muruganandham,, is hereby quashed.

6. The detenu Akash S/o.Muruganandham is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

7. With the above direction, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. (P.V., J) (M.J.R., J) 06.01.2026 ksa-2 3 / 5

To

1. The Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur

3. The Superintendent of Police Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur

4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai

5. The Inspector of Police B-6, Mappedu Police Station Tiruvallur District

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4 / 5

P.VELMURUGAN, J and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J ksa-2 06.01.2026 (1/3) 5 / 5