BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.06.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN H.C.P.(MD)No.55 of 2026 Durgadevi .. Petitioner / mother of the detenu Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli District, Trichirappalli. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. .. Respondents Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the Page 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis impugned detention order passed by the second respondent made in his proceedings in C.No.98/Detention/CPO/TC/2025 dated 19.12.2025 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely, Nanthakumar @ Nanthu s/o. Nagaraj, male, aged about 20 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Trichirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Side ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, by name, Nanthakumar @ Nanthu s/o. Nagaraj, male, aged about 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No. 98/Detention/CPO/TC/2025 dated 19.12.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition. Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 3. Apart from the other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised is that the detenu was arrested on 11.11.2025, whereas, the detention order was passed only on 19.12.2025. There is a delay of 38 days in passing the detention order and this delay is totally unexplained. 4. In our considered view, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1333.

5. The detention order is vitiated due to the fact that there was a solitary case and the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of the detention is completely absent. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the detained order passed by the second respondent. Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.98/Detention/CPO/TC/2025 dated 19.12.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Nanthakumar @ Nanthu s/o. Nagaraj, male, aged about 20 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. (N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 12.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli District, Trichirappalli. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis N. ANAND VENKATESH,J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. TSG H.C.P.(MD)No.55 of 2026 12.06.2026 Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.06.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN H.C.P.(MD)No.55 of 2026 Durgadevi .. Petitioner / mother of the detenu Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli District, Trichirappalli. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. .. Respondents Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the Page 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis impugned detention order passed by the second respondent made in his proceedings in C.No.98/Detention/CPO/TC/2025 dated 19.12.2025 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely, Nanthakumar @ Nanthu s/o. Nagaraj, male, aged about 20 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Trichirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Side ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, by name, Nanthakumar @ Nanthu s/o. Nagaraj, male, aged about 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No. 98/Detention/CPO/TC/2025 dated 19.12.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition. Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 3. Apart from the other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised is that the detenu was arrested on 11.11.2025, whereas, the detention order was passed only on 19.12.2025. There is a delay of 38 days in passing the detention order and this delay is totally unexplained. 4. In our considered view, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1333.

5. The detention order is vitiated due to the fact that there was a solitary case and the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of the detention is completely absent. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the detained order passed by the second respondent. Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.98/Detention/CPO/TC/2025 dated 19.12.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Nanthakumar @ Nanthu s/o. Nagaraj, male, aged about 20 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. (N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 12.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli District, Trichirappalli. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis N. ANAND VENKATESH,J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. TSG H.C.P.(MD)No.55 of 2026 12.06.2026 Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis