Saranya v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Saranya (30/2025) ... Petitioner/Wife of Detenue -vs1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collector, Theni District
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Devadhanapatti Police Station, Theni District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's husband Sundar @ Suthamalli
Sundar son of Murugan aged about 34 years vide detention order made in detention order No.11/2025 dated 19.03.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue now detained at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.N.Balasubramanian For Respondents :
Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.) [Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenue, namely, Sundar @ Suthamalli Sundar son of Murugan aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent in detention order No.11/2025 dated 19.03.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 3(2) of 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. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that the rejection order received by the Prison department on 05.04.2025 and served on the detenue only on 11.04.2025. There is an unexplained delay. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that he had examined the records that the rejection order had been sent through speed post/ordinary post on 03.04.2025 and simultaneously by an electronic mail the Additional Chief Secretary, Chennai, sent the same to the Central Prison at Madurai. The detenue was detained at Sub Jail at Dindigul. The prison authorities at Central Prison, Madurai had immediately forwarded the electronic mail to the Sub Jail, at Dindigul on 04.04.2025.
5. Explanation may be forwarded by the officials at Sub Jail, Dindigul and also at Central Prisonat Madurai giving the details that when they have received the electronic mail and the steps taken to serve the copy of the electronic mail on the detenue. Let explanation be given by both the authorities for forwarding the explanation both from the Central Prison, Madurai and the Sub Jail, Dindigul.
6. Call on 22.10.2025.
[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 14.10.2025 CM
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collector, Theni District
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Devadhanapatti Police Station, Theni District.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.
and R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.
CM 14.10.2025