Seeni @ Srinivasan v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By Its The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN H.C.P.(MD)No.421 of 2026 Seeni @ Srinivasan .. Petitioner / detenu Vs.

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

2.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the District Magistrate and District Collector, O/o.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District, Karur 3.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy 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 second respondent in Cr.MP.No.27/2025 dated Nil. 07.2025 and direct the respondent to produce the person Seeni @ Srinivasan, S/o.Maathappan, aged 35 years, now detained as Goonda at Trichy Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan, Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu, (Criminal Side)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.) The petitioner is the detenu, by name, Seeni @ Srinivasan, S/o.Maathappan, aged 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.MP.No.27/2025 dated Nil.07.2025 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 Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Apart from the other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner one of the main ground that was raised is that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that no bail petition was filed by the detenu and in spite of the same, the Detaining Authority proceeded to rely upon the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4374 of 2024 and came to a conclusion that bail has been granted in a similar case and therefore, there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned counsel submitted that the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority does not arise out of a similar case and hence, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the detenu was acquitted in the ground case by the trial Court in C.C.No.710 of 2025 by judgment dated 10.02.2026.

4. In our considered view the mere acquittal in the ground case will not automatically result in vitiating the detention order. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Radhika Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 and others reported in 2022-2-LW (Crl.) 941.

5. We carefully went through the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4374 of 2024 which was relied upon by the Detaining Authority. That was a case where the Court had taken into consideration the fact that the accused had suffered incarceration for nearly 46 days and therefore, bail was granted. In the case in hand, the detenu was arrested on 12.06.2025 and the detention order was passed on 02.07.2025 and that apart, no bail petition was filed by the detenu in the ground case. Therefore, the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority certainly does not arise out of a similar case. Hence, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.MP.No.27/2025 dated Nil.07.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Seeni @ Srinivasan, S/o.Maathappan, aged 35 years is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. (N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 02.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG

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

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, O/o.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District, Karur 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy 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.421 of 2026 02.06.2026