BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.04.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN H.C.P.(MD)No.599 of 2026 Singaraj ... Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.. ... Respondents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in H.S.(M) Confdl.No. 60/2025, dt. 30.06.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or Detenu namely Vignesh,S/o. Singaraj, 25 yrs (now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai) before this court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Banuprasath For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.) The petitioner is the father of detenu, by name, Vignesh, S/o. Singaraj, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in detention order H.S.(M) Confdl.No. 60/2025, dt. 30.06.2025 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. 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3. Apart from the other grounds raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised is that the detenu was arrested on 02.06.2025, whereas, the detention order was passed only on 30.06.2025. There is a delay of 28 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. 6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in H.S.(M) Confdl.No. 60/2025, dt. 30.06.2025 passed by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vignesh S/o. Singaraj, aged about 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case. (N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 30.04.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RR To Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis N. ANAND VENKATESH,J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. RR H.C.P.(MD)No.599 of 2026 30.04.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis