Petchiyammal 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.1286 of 2025 Petchiyammal ... Petitioner vs.

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

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

3. The Inspector of Police Gangaikondan Police Station Tirunelveli District

4. 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, call for the records pertaining Page No.1 of 5

to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in M.H.S.Confdl. No.49 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenue namely Valathi alias Arumugam, S/o.Arumugam aged about 23 years now he is confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar 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 M.H.S.Confdl. No. 49 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 and direct the respondents to produce the detenue namely Valathi alias Arumugam, S/o.Arumugam aged about 23 years now he is confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Page No.2 of 5

respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not served with the remand extension order. Though the detenu was involved in several other cases, he was not served with the remand report in all those cases.

4. A perusal of the counter filed by the respondent and also the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner was so far involved in seven similar cases the sponsoring authority has shown only two adverse cases and one ground case.

5. Though the petitioner was involved in several cases, the sponsoring authority need not collect all materials to detain the detenu under Act. 14 of 1982, therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent. Page No.3 of 5

6. In the result, the Habeus Corpus Petition stands dismissed. [G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 05.01.2026 Index : Yes / No aav To:

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

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

3. The Inspector of Police Gangaikondan Police Station Tirunelveli District

4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkotai, Tirunelveli 5.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