S.Sangeetha v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY H.C.P.(MD) No.271 of 2026 S.Sangeetha .. Petitioner / Mother of the detenu Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu, The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collector Office, 3.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison,

5.The Inspector of Police, Palakkarai Police Station, .. Respondents Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the person or body of detenue namely Vigneshwar Boopathi Raja @ Vikki, aged about 25 years before this Court, who is now detained in the Central Prison, Trichy, in pursuant to the detention order passed by the third respondent in C.No. 91/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025, dated 08.12.2025 and to call for the records and quash the same and set the detenue at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, by name, Vigneshwar Boopathi Raja @ Vikki, S/o.Subramani, aged about 25. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.

91/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025, dated 08.12.2025, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Apart from the other grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised is that there were no adverse cases and that the ground case was for offences under Section 296(b), 118(1) and 109 of the BNS, 2023 and that the detention order came to be passed by the respondents for a solitary offence.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that considering the criminal act of the detenu, which resulted in a disturbance to public order, the detention order came to be passed.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. In the case on hand, it was a solitary case without there being any adverse cases against the detenu. Even for a

single incident, a detention order can be passed under Act 14 of 1982 if it has the propensity to affect public order. In the case on hand, the alleged incident is said to have taken place pursuant to a wordy quarrel between two parties, which ultimately resulted in an attack made with an iron rod. This incident certainly may not result in affecting public tranquillity and can be dealt with as a law and order issue. Useful reference can be made to the judgment in K.K.Saravana Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2008 9 SCC 89. Hence, this Court does not find any justification for the Detaining Authority passing the detention order for a solitary incident.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.91/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025, dated 08.12.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vigneshwar Boopathi Raja @ Vikki, S/o.Subramani, aged about 25, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

(N.A.V.,J..) (S.S.Y.,J.,) 08.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Indu

To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collector Office, 3.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, 5.The Inspector of Police, Palakkarai Police Station, 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

AND S.SRIMATHY,J.

Indu H.C.P.(MD) No.271 of 2026 08.06.2026