HCP No. 2675 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 2675 of 2025 R.Ganesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, (Home), Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police, T-15, Kannagi Nagar Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detenu’s detention order passed by the 2nd respondent BBCDEFGISSSV No.129/2025 dated 30.09.2025 and set aside the same and produce the detenu R. Karthik male aged about 30 years S/o. Raji, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2675 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 7 now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Dhanasekar For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The brother of the detenu – R.Karthik, aged 30 years, S/o.Raji, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 30.09.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu for the respondents. 3. The detention order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. Firstly, on perusal of records, it is seen that the special report sent by the sponsoring authority is undated. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would depend on the date on which the sponsoring authority has sent his report. In the absence of the said date, the special https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2675 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 7 report would become irrelevant and the compelling necessity to detain the detenu becomes doubtful. 4. Further in 'Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another' reported in '2011 [5] SCC 244', the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that where the detention order is passed on any irrelevant material, then, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 5.Secondly, it is seen from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has not moved any bail application, however, he has also stated that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing appropriate bail application. Admittedly, there was no material placed before the detaining authority that the detenu or his relatives were taking steps to file a bail application. In such circumstances, inference of the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to file a bail application and come out on bail is his mere ipse dixit. Since the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is without basis, the conclusion that the detenu would indulge in further criminal activities, is vitiated. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2675 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 7 6.Thirdly, it is seen from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has relied upon an order passed in Crl.MP.No.23 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur to arrive at a conclusion that in similar cases bail has been granted by the Courts and that therefore, the detenu is likely to be released on bail by filing the bail application. 7. In the order relied upon by the detaining authority, it is seen that the Judicial Magistrate had granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., since the final report was not filed within the statutory period and not on merits. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said order by the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is misconceived. The inference that the detenu would indulge in further criminal activities after his release also is without any basis. For the above mentioned reasons, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No.129/2025 dated 30.09.2025, is set aside. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2675 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 7 9. The detenu, viz., R.Karthik, aged 30 years, S/o.Raji, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is hereby 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.) 06-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG Note: Issue order copy today To 1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, (Home), Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police, T-15, Kannagi Nagar Police Station, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2675 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 7 5. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2675 of 2025 __________ Page7 of 7 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG HCP No. 2675 of 2025 06-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis