HCP No. 3 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 3 of 2026 Mahalakshmi ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Secretary, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 006. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3. The Inspector of Police, S-1, St. Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai. 4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prision - II, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. ..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 detention order in Memo No.905/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 04.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to Produce the petitioner’s husband Thiru.Ramesh, S/o. Kabir Dass, aged about 57 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner’s husband Thiru. Ramesh, S/o. Kabir Dass, aged about 57 years, the detenu herein at liberty. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 3 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): Mr.R. Lingakumar 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 wife of the detenu – Ramesh, aged 57 years, S/o.Kabir Dass, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 04.11.2025, branding him as a ‘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 (Criminal Side) for the respondents. 3.It is seen that the final report in one of the adverse cases relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenu in the booklet. However, substantial portion of the same is in English and has not been translated in Tamil. Admittedly, the detenu is acquainted only with Tamil. It is well settled that if the relied upon documents are not furnished in the language known to the detenu, his right to make effective representation would be denied. In 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413', the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that non-supply of relevant documents in the language known to the detenu renders the detention illegal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 3 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 4.Secondly, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu had filed a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.4827 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Alandur and the same was dismissed; that again he moved a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.5056/2025 before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Alandur and the same is pending; and that in a similar case, bail was granted to some other accused by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee, in Crl.M.P.No.3029 of 2024 on 23.09.2024. 5.The detaining authority ought to have seen whether the facts in the bail order relied upon by him were comparable to the facts of the instant case. The facts in the said case are not comparable to the present case as there is no reference to the number of previous cases pending against the accused therein. Further, bail was granted to that accused only because there was only a formal objection on the side of the prosecution. However, there are six previous cases pending against the detenu. Therefore, the reliance placed by the detaining authority on the said order, vitiates his subjective satisfaction as regards the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. For both the reasons, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 6. In light of the above discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.905/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 04.11.2025 is set aside. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 3 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 7.The detenu, viz., Ramesh, aged 57 years, S/o.Kabir Dass, 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.) 17-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG Note: Issue order copy today. To 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Secretary, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 006. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3. The Inspector of Police, S-1, St. Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai. 4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prision - II, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 5. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 3 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 3 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG HCP No. 3 of 2026 17-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis