Madras High Court
HCP/1161/2026 of Chinnaraj Vs The Secretary to the Government on 29 September 2026
HCP No. 1161 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
HCP No. 1161 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011398692026}
Chinnaraj
S/o. Munusamy,
No.1/83, Giddampatti Village,
Agasipalli Post,
Krishnagiri Taluk and District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate of Krishnagiri District, Krisnagiri.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri PEW Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
..Respondent(s)
HCP No. 1161 of 2026
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 10.06.2026 in S.C.No.29/2026 against the petitioner’s son Bhuvanesh, male, aged 34 years, S/o.Chinnaraj, who is confined at Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.D.Balaji
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
(made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu Bhuvanesh, male, aged 34 years, S/o.Chinnaraj, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 10.06.2026 bearing reference Memo S.C.No.29/2026 branding him as "Bootlegger" 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].
HCP No. 1161 of 2026
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the sponsoring authority has stated in the arrest memo at Page No.13 of the booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the father of the detenu. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the father of the detenu. Therefore, it is stated that the detenu was deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of furnishing of full particulars by the detaining authority. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the father of the detenu through SMS.
HCP No. 1161 of 2026
5. However we find that there are no material particulars to substantiate the same. This Court has also taken the similar view in such cases that the detention order cannot be sustained.
6. As evidenced from the document in Page No.13 of the booklet furnished to us, a mere endorsement is made by the authorities to the effect that the arrest intimation has been informed to the father of the detenu through SMS, but, no materials have been furnished to substantiate that the said intimation was sent through Thapal or Registered post or as per the procedure laid down. Therefore, non-furnishing of details given to the relatives of the detenu would amount to deprivation of the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and the same would vitiate the order of detention and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
7. It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed.
HCP No. 1161 of 2026
In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 10.06.2026 in Memo S.C.No.29/2026 is hereby set aside and the detenu viz. Bhuvanesh, male, aged 34 years, S/o.Chinnaraj, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsd To
1. The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department,, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate of Krishnagiri District, Krisnagiri.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
5. The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri PEW Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
6. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order, Public Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
7. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
HCP No. 1161 of 2026
N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. nsd HCP No. 1161 of 2026 29-09-2026