Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 95629 (MAD)

Sujinkumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

HCP(MD)/1322/2025 · 2026-02-03

G K Ilanthiraiyan, R Poornima

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

H.C.P.(MD)No.1322 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.02.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA H.C.P.(MD)No.1322 of 2025 Sujinkumar ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil 3.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Marthandam, Kanyakumari District 4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Palayamkottai ... Respondents ____________ p. 2 H.C.P.(MD)No.1322 of 2025 PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in proceedings in PD No.12 of 2025 dated 24.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu namely Sujinkumar, S/o.Rajan, aged about 31 years now he is confined in Central Prison,Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.) The petitioner is the detenu viz., Sujinkumar, S/o.Rajan, aged about 31 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in detention order in PD No.12 of 2025 dated 24.04.2025 holding him to be a "sexual offeder", as ____________ p. 3 H.C.P.(MD)No.1322 of 2025 contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of 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. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised only one ground that the detenu was served with illegible copy of Accident Register annexed in page page No.31 and 33. 4. A perusal of the record reveals that the detenu was served with clear copy of Accident Register annexed in page page No.31 and 33 at page no. 35 ____________ p. 4 H.C.P.(MD)No.1322 of 2025 5. In view of the same, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent, hence the petition stands dismissed. [G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 03.02.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No aav To 1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil 3.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Marthandam, Kanyakumari District ____________ p. 5 H.C.P.(MD)No.1322 of 2025 4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Palayamkottai 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ____________ p. 6 H.C.P.(MD)No.1322 of 2025 G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J. AND R. POORNIMA,J. aav H.C.P.(MD)No.1322 of 2025 03.02.2026 ____________