A.Lakshmanan 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 A.Lakshmanan ... Petitioner/Father of the Detenu -vs1.State Rep. by its The Additional Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent and made in his proceedings in M.H.S.Confidential No.53 of 2025 dated 01.07.2025 in detaining the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 u/s. 2(f) as a Sexual Offender and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Prabhakar alias Prabhu, S/o.Lakshmanan, aged about 27 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Dhinakar 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 father of the detenu viz., Prabahar alias Prabu, son of Lakshmanan, aged about 27 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.53 of 2025, dated 01.07.2025, holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) 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 for the petitioner raised a ground that the doctor, who recorded the Accident Register, was not examined by the Investigating Officer. Further, the detenu was not served with legible copy of the observation mahazar, which is annexed at Page No.17 of the booklet.
4. On perusal of the booklet revealed that Page No.17 is very much legible, therefore, no prejudice caused to the detenu to submit a representation to reconsider the order of detention. Further, non examination of the doctor, who recorded the Accident Register, may be useful for the detenu for conducting trial. This habeas corpus petition is filed only challenging the order of detention.
5. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order of detention passed by the second respondent and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.
[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 02.02.2026 am NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No
To 1.The Additional Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND R. POORNIMA,J.
am 02.02.2026