Sivayogam v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 11.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. POORNIMA H.C.P(MD). No.1301 of 2025 Sivayogam, ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By, The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

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

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.

4. The Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Nagudi, Pudukkottai District.

... Respondents PRAYER :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in Detention order on 1/5

29.07.2025 in P.D.O.No.24, and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenue namely Kalidoss, S/o.Anburaj, aged about 27 years, before this Court and set him at liberty, now confined at Central Prison, Trichy. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar, For Respondent : 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 mother of the detenu viz., Kalidoss, son of Ramasamy aged about 30 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.O.No.24 dated 29.07.2025 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 2/5

Detaining Authority.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was not served with translated copy of page No.27 of the booklet, therefore the detenu is deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation to reconsider the order of detention.

4. On a perusal of the records, it is revealed that the Accident Register was prepared only after the dead body of the deceased was brought to the hospital. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu in making an effective representation seeking reconsideration of the detention order. Hence, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order of detention.

5. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. [G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 11.02.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No 3/5

LS TO

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

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

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.

4. The Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Nagudi, Pudukkottai District.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

AND R. POORNIMA,J.

LS H.C.P(MD) No.1301 of 2025 11.02.2026 5/5