Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34278 (MAD)

DINESHKUMAR v. The Stat of Tamilnadu

HCP/2079/2025 · 2026-06-16

Anita Sumanth, Sunder Mohan

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:MHC:2151 HCP No. 2079 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 2079 of 2025 Dineshkumar S/o.Krishnamoorthi, No. 121, Angappa Street, Karumandiselli Palayam, Perundhurai Taluk, Erode District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Erode District, Erode. 3. The Superintendent of Police Erode District, Erode. 4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Coimbatore. 5. The Inspector of Police Erode Taluk Police Station, __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2151 HCP No. 2079 of 2025 Erode. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ of direction to call for the records relating to the detention order dt. 24.08.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No. Cr.M.P.No.48/GOONDA/2025 C1 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioners brother namely Ravikumar, Brother of Palanisamy aged about 38 years who is presently under going detention in Central Prison, Coimbatore as Goonda before this honble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Vinoth For Respondent(s): Mr. C.R. Malarvannan Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) One Ravikumar, aged 38 years, S/o Palanisamy, has suffered an order of detention dated 24.08.2025 and his brother has approached this Court seeking to set aside the detention order. 2.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised various grievances as against the impugned order of detention. He also points out that the Special Report that forms an important basis for the grounds of detention, is not even dated. __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2151 HCP No. 2079 of 2025 3.We have heard both learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (criminal side) for the respondents. 4.We have perused the Special Report which is placed at page 57 of the booklet furnished. As rightly pointed out, we find the same undated. Insofar as the Special Report is one of the important documents, based on which the decision to detain the petitioner has been taken, the same ought to have been dated, to establish credibility. 5. 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 report would become irrelevant and the compelling necessity to detain the detenu becomes doubtful. That apart, in the absence of a date, the proximity of the document to the incriminating events is also lost, and to this extent, there is a snappage of the link between that document and the other events. 6. Further in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another (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. Therefore, we are of the view that for the aforesaid reasons the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside. __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2151 HCP No. 2079 of 2025 7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.48/Goonda/2025 C1, dated 24.08.2025 is set aside. 8. The detenu, viz., Ravikumar, S/o. Palanisamy, aged 38 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, 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.) 16-06-2026 sl Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes Note to Registry: Issue Today. To 1. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Erode District, Erode. 3. The Superintendent of Police Erode District, Erode. __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2151 HCP No. 2079 of 2025 4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Coimbatore. 5. The Inspector of Police Erode Taluk Police Station, Erode. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 7. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai -9. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2151 HCP No. 2079 of 2025 DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. SL HCP No. 2079 of 2025 16-06-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis