L.Kannimari v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.893 of 2025 L.Kannimari ... Petitioner vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tenkasi District, Tenkasi
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkotai, Tirunelveli ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records in detention order passed in MHS Confdl No.36 of 2025 dated 12.05.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's grand son, ie., Rajkumar, alias Gopi, aged about Page No.1 of 5
18 years , S/o.Dharmar now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents: Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.] This Habeus Corpus Petition has been filed to quash the detention order passed by the second respondent in MHS Confdl No.36 of 2025 dated 12.05.2025 and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's grand son, ie., Rajkumar, alias Gopi, aged about 18 years , S/o.Dharmar now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
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.
Page No.2 of 5
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the time of passing detention order the detenu was minor and he has not completed 18 years, therefore the detention order cannot be sustained and the same has to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner failed to produce any materials to show the detenu was minor at the time of passing detention order. Further the records also reveals that the detenu has committed very heinous and serious offence as against the minor victim, therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent.
5. In the result, the Habeus Corpus Petition stands dismissed. [G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 05.01.2026 Index : Yes / No aav Page No.3 of 5
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tenkasi District, Tenkasi
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkotai, Tirunelveli 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No.4 of 5
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND R.POORNIMA, J.
aav DATED : 05.01.2026 Page No.5 of 5