C. Angel v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :05.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA C.Angel ... Petitioner -vs1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli
4. The Superintendent District Jail, Perurani Thoothukudi 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 connected with the detention order passed in
H.S(M) Confdl.No.73 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025 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 husband ie. Chandran, aged about 21 years. S/o.Sekar now detained at the District Jail, Peruruani, Thoothukudi District 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.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Chandran, aged about 21 years. S/o.Sekar . The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in detention order in H.S(M) Confdl.No.73 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda, as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a specific ground that the detenu was not provided with tamil version of the document which was annexed in page nos. 25,65,285,481 of the booklet. He also submitted representation dated 08.08.2025 and requested the Government to provide translated version of those pages. However it was not furnished to the detenu, hence he was not able to make effective representation to re-consider the order of detention.
4. A perusal of the counter affidavit and also persual of the proforma produced by the respondent reveals that no such
representation was received by any one of the authority. The petitioner also failed to produce any proof that the said representation dated 08.08.2025 was sent to the authorities. That apart the detenue is a habitual offender and he is involved in 16 previous cases and the detenue is provided with remand report in which all the pending cases were mentioned in Tamil . That apart pages nos. 25 and 65 relates to cases in which the detenu involved so far. Therefore no prejudice caused to the detenu to make effective representation to re-consider the order of detention.
5. In view of the same, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent, hence the petition stands dismissed.
[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 05.02.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No aav
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli
4. The Superintendent District Jail, Perurani Thoothukudi District 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND R. POORNIMA,J.
aav 05.02.2026