[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Karpagam vs State Of Tamilnadu Represented By ... on 21 April, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2026:MHC:1557
HCP No. 2480 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
HCP No. 2480 of 2025
Karpagam
W/o.Ganesan,
No.144, Victoriya hostel,
back side,
Triplicane,
Chennai-600 005.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu represented by Secretary to
government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Puzhal,
Chennai.
4. State rep.by Inspector of Police,
D5, Marina Police Station,
Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
HCP No. 2480 of 2025
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, or any other appropriate order or direction,
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP No. 2480 of 2025
calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the order made in
Memo No.507/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.07.2025 in detaining the
detenu under the Tamilnadu Act 14/1982 as a brand of GOONDA and quash the
same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, the petitioner’s husband
Sureshkumar, Son of Ganesan, aged 32 years who is detained at the Central
Prison Puzhal, Chennai before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Ms.J. Pavatharani
For Respondent(s): Mr. R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted By
Mr. M.Sylvester John
ORDER
(Made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)
Sureshkumar, S/o. Ganesan, has been branded as Goonda and detained
under Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982) under order
dated 25.07.2025. His mother has approached this Court seeking quash of that
order.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the impugned order
of detention is vitiated on various grounds. Firstly, she would submit that the
arrest intimation has not been served either upon the detenu or any of the family
members and the contact number set out in the arrest intimation is unknown.
3. Secondly, she would submit that neither the detenu nor his relatives
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have taken any steps to enlarge him on bail. Thirdly, she would point out that
the instance of bail relied upon by the detaining authority in Crl OP No. 25228
of 2024 by this Court, is not comparable to the offences with which the detenu
has been charged.
4. Mr.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would defend
the orders of detention pointing out that the offences committed are grave in
nature.
5. We have heard both learned counsel. The apprehension of the detaining
authority that the detenu would be enlarged on bail, is ostensible based on
information that he is privy to, that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to
obtain bail. There is no scrap of evidence to support this apprehension.
6. We have specifically posed a query to learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and also peruse the booklet and find no statement or any other
material to corroborate this apprehension. The subjective satisfaction in this
regard is hence not based on any material and is vitiated.
7. That apart, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the
accused in Crl OP No. 25228/2024 is charged with offences under Sections
126(2), 296(b), 309(4), 311 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 whereas the detenu has
been charged with offences under 296(b), 115(2), 309(4), 311 and 351(3), BNS,
2023. We find a mismatch between the offences in the present case and those in
the case relied upon by the detaining authority, which also vitiates his subjective
satisfaction as the two cases are not identical. Hence merely because that
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accused has been released on bail would not substantiate the apprehension of
the detaining authority in the present case.
8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in
No.507/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 25.07.2025, is set aside.
9. The detenu, viz., Sureshkumar, S/o. Ganesan, aged 32 years, who is
now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.)
21-04-2026
Neutral Citation: Yes
ssm
Note to Registry : Issue Today
To
1. The Secretary to government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Puzhal,
Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
D5, Marina Police Station,
Chennai.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and Order),
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN J.
SSM
21-04-2026
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
