Pandiselvi v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.06.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN H.C.P.(MD)No.541 of 2026 Pandiselvi .. Petitioner / Wife of the detenu Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
.. 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 passed in C.No.87/detention/C.P.O/TC/2025, dated 21.11.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the
body or person of the petitioner husband namely Sridher, male, aged about 26/2026, S/o.Sankar and detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramakrishnan 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 wife of the detenu, by name, Sridher, aged about 26 years, S/o.Sankar. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.87/detention/C.P.O/TC/2025, dated 21.11.2025, 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 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 grounds that was urged is that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu had not filed any bail application in the adverse cases and the ground case and inspite of the same, the Detaining Authority relied upon the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3085 of 2024, dated 13.02.2024 and came to the conclusion that bail had been granted in a similar case and therefore, there was a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned counsel submitted that the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority did not arise out of a similar case and hence, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.
4. We have carefully gone through the order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 3085 of 2024, dated 13.02.2024. That was a case, where the investigation was not completed within a period of 90 days and hence, the Court had granted statutory bail to the accused therein. Therefore, the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority is certainly not a similar case and consequently, the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
21.11.2025 suffers from non-application of mind.
5. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.87/detention/C.P.O/TC/2025, dated 21.11.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sridher, aged about 26 years, S/o. Sankar, 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.,) 03.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Indu
To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
Indu H.C.P.(MD) No.541 of 2026 03.06.2026