Madras High Court
HCP/1236/2026 of Revathi Vs State rep. By, The Secretary to Government on 30 September 2026
HCP No. 1236 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
HCP No. 1236 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011417112026}
Revathi
W/o.Murugan,
No.242/306, Anglamman Kovil Street,
Puthumariyamman Kovil,
Ponnammapet,
Salem.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State rep. By,
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.Gorge,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Salem.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Kannankurichi Police Station,
Salem.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in C.M.P.No.73/GOONDA/SALEM CITY/2026 Dated 04.06.2026 on the file of the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, the second respondent
HCP No. 1236 of 2026
herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Jeeva @ Jeevanraj, S/o.Murugan, aged about 24 years, now confined at central prison, Salem, before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.S.Sengkodi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Jeeva @ Jeevanraj, Son of Murugan, Male, aged about 24 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 04.06.2026 vide proceedings in C.M.P.No.73/GOONDA/SALEM CITY/2026 branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents. We have perused the records submitted by the detaining authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned
HCP No. 1236 of 2026
counsel for the petitioner confined his argument only with regard to non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his arguments on the ground that, while remanding the accused, the learned Magistrate has clearly held that the accused was detained only under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, and that offences under Sections 296(b) and 115(2) of BNS, 2023 were not made out. However, the detaining authority, in the order of detention, stated that the detenu was detained under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023. This clearly shows a non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention, thereby preventing the detenu from making an effective representation against the detention order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit submits that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner.
6. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the materials available on record especially Page No.105 in Volume-I of the booklet, it is evident that, while remanding the accused, the learned
HCP No. 1236 of 2026
Magistrate explicitly held that the accused was detained only under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, and that offences under Sections 296(b) and 115(2) of BNS, 2023 were not made out. However, the detaining authority, in the order of detention, stated that the detenu was detained under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023. This clearly shows non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.
7. In the result, the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 04.06.2026 vide proceedings in C.M.P.No.73/GOONDA/SALEM CITY/2026 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jeeva @ Jeevanraj, Son of Murugan, Male, aged about 24 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSI Note to Office: Registry to communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Salem, forthwith.
HCP No. 1236 of 2026
To:
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.Gorge, Chennai – 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
4. The Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
HCP No. 1236 of 2026
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. SSI HCP No. 1236 of 2026 30-09-2026