Arunkumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN H.C.P.(MD)No.324 of 2026 Arunkumar .. Petitioner / detenu Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIV) Department, Fort St George, Chennai 600009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.
.. Respondents Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the
detention order of the Respondent No.2 in No.81/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 11.11.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person by name Arunkumar, son of Sreethar, aged about 25 years, detained as "Goonda" at Palaymkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.) The petitioner is the detenu, by name, Arunkumar, son of Sreethar, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.81/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 11.11.2025 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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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 appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised is that the detenu was arrested on 14.10.2025, whereas, the detention order was passed only on 15.11.2025. There is a delay of 28 days in passing the detention order and this delay is totally unexplained.
4. In our considered view, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1333.
5. The detention order is vitiated due to the fact that there was a solitary case and the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of the detention is completely absent. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the detained order passed by the second respondent.
6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.81/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 11.11.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Arunkumar, son of
Sreethar, aged about 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case. (N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 29.04.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIV) Department, Fort St George, Chennai 600009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
TSG H.C.P.(MD)No.324 of 2026 29.04.2026