Varshini v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA Varshini ... Petitioner/ Daughter of the Detenu -vs1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

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

3.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison, Madurai.

... 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 pertaining to the impugned detention No.50/2025 dated 12.08.2025 passed by the second respondent under Section 2(ee) of the Tamil Nadu

Act 14/1982 as a Economic Offendor and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue, namely, C.Senthilkumar, s/o.Chinnaraj, aged about 55 years and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison, Madurai.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Poornachandran 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 daughter of the detenu viz., C.Senthilkumar, S/o.Chinnaraj, aged about 55 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No. 50/2025 dated 12.08.2025 holding him to be an "Economic Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ee) 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 the grounds that the representation of the petitioner dated 04.09.2025 to reconsider the order of detention of her father was not considered in time and therefore, it causes prejudice to the detenue. He further submitted that the detenue was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.07.2025, but the detention order was passed on 12.08.2025. There was a delay in passing the detention order.

4. On perusal of the records and submissions made on either side, it was revealed that though the detenue was arrested on 16.07.2025, the Sponsoring Authority collected all the materials and recommended the Detaining Authority to pass detention order. Thereafter, the detention order was passed on 12.08.2025. The detenue was involved in a crime against the society. The detenue had cheated 105 victims so far by collecting more than Rs.17 crores. That apart, detenue had cheated the general public by showing the photographs of the retired High Court

Judges as if they are the advisors of the detenue for the financial institution run by the detenue in the name and style of 'Sree Nesha'. Therefore, the detenue was rightly committed as an 'Economic Offender' and he was detained under Act 14. The representation submitted by the petitioner was duly considered and rejected within time and hence, there was no delay in considering the representation submitted by the petitioner to reconsider the order of detention passed against her father.

5. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the detention order and hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.

[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 18.02.2026 apd NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

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

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

3.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison, Madurai.

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

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

AND R. POORNIMA,J.

apd 18.02.2026