H.C.P.(MD) No.861 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.08.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.MURUGESAN H.C.P.(MD) No.861 of 2026 M.Akshaya ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli 3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkottai Tirunelveli District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order No. 45/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026, dated 10.03.2026, on the file of the second ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.861 of 2026 respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's son, namely, Panthala Maharajan, son of Murugan, aged about 21 years, now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Panthala Maharajan, son of Murugan, aged about 21 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order No. 44/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026, dated 10.03.2026 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. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenu had not filed any application for bail. While so, the detaining authority relying on another case stating it to be a similar case, has inferred that there ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.861 of 2026 is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the authority without disclosing the facts of the other case and without any supporting material, is a mere ipse dixit. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned detention order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 4. When no such bail application has been filed by the detenu, there is no likelihood of the detenu being released on bail. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is ipse dixit. Further, the similar case relied on also does not pertain to a co-accused and it pertains to a different crime number. Further, the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alagu vs The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 976 : (2026) SCC 976. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 5. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention No.45/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026, dated 10.03.2026, passed by ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.861 of 2026 the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Panthala Maharajan, son of Murugan, aged about 21 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [B.M., J.] 11.08.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk To: 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.861 of 2026 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND B.MURUGESAN, J. krk H.C.P.(MD) No.861 of 2026 11.08.2026 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis