[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Hari Haran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1176 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.1176 of 2025
Hari Haran ... Petitioner/Detenu
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Superintendent,
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
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:26 am )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1176 of 2025
records relating to the detention order passed by the second
respondent in his proceedings Cr.M.P.No.84/Goonda/2025 detention
order dated 19.08.2025 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu namely
Hari Haran, S/o.Pandi, aged 22 years (now detained at Central
Prison, Madurai) before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.)
The petitioner is the detenu viz., Hariharan, son of Pandi,
aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by her order in Cr.M.P.No.84/Goonda/2025, dated
19.08.2025 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:26 am )
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 appearing for the petitioner raised
the grounds that the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody on 07.07.2025 in pursuant to the registration of the FIR in
Cr.No.387/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 281,
191(1), 191(2), 191(3), 109, 103, 351(3) r/w 49 Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. It was shown as ground case. However, the
detention order was passed only on 19.08.2025 after a period of 42
days. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would
vitiate the same. He further submitted that there is no live and
proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the
detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned
detention order is also liable to be set aside.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:26 am )
4. On a perusal of the counter affidavit and also the
submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents reveals that, the detenu was arrested
and remanded to judicial custody on 07.07.2025. However, the
detenu was detained under Act, 14 of 1982 only on 19.08.2025. This
shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which is
also unexplained. The live and proximate link between the arrest of
the detenu and the need for passing the order of detention has
snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of
detention is liable to be set aside.
5. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of
Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333, when there was
an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the
detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and
the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held
that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:26 am )
purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt
on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining
authority in passing the detention order unless such delay is
satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The
relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-
"20. It is manifestly clear from a
conspectus of the above decisions of this
Court, that the underlying principle is that if
there is unreasonable delay between the date
of the order of detention & actual arrest of the
detenu and in the same manner from the date
of the proposal and passing of the order of
detention, such delay unless satisfactorily
explained throws a considerable doubt on the
genuineness of the requisite subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority in
passing the detention order and consequently
render the detention order bad and invalid
because the “live and proximate link”
between the grounds of detention and the
purpose of detention is snapped in arresting
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:26 am )
the detenu. A question whether the delay is
unreasonable and stands unexplained
depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case."
6. In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel for
the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained,
thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.84/Goonda/2025, dated
19.08.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The
detenu, viz., Hariharan, son of Pandi, aged about 22 years, is
directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in
connection with any other case.
am [G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.]
NCC :Yes/No 19.02.2026
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:26 am )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:26 am )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND
R. POORNIMA,J.
am
19.02.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:26 am )
