M.Pushpa v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :02.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1011 of 2025 M.Pushpa ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi

3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkottai Tirunelveli ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the second respondent in detention order No. H.S(M) Confdl. No.63 of 2025 dated 01.07.2025 setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent herein setting the detenu by name Gokulakrishnan set him at liberty now detained in Central Prison,Palayamkottai. Page No.1 of 5

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Ramasamy 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 H.S(M) Confdl. No.63 of 2025 dated 01.07.2025 and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the petitioner's son namely Gokulakrishnan, who is now detained in Central Prison,Palayamkottai.

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 though raised several grounds he vehemently contended that in the ground case trial commenced and two of the eye witnesses turned hostile. Page No.2 of 5

4. The ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not a valid ground to quash the order of detention passed by the second respondent. It is a case of retaliation murder and if the detenu comes out on bail there is a chance for retaliation murder and there is law and order issue .

5. In view of the same, this Court finds that the detenu has not made out any ground to interfere with the order of detention passed by the second respondent, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the Habeus Corpus Petition stands dismissed. [G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 02.02.2026 Index : Yes / No aav To:

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

Page No.3 of 5

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi

3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkottai 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 :02.02.2026 Page No.5 of 5