Madras High Court
HCP/1121/2026 of Mohan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its,Secretary to Go on 26 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.KARTHIKEYAN
H.C.P.No.1121 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011328772026}
Mohan
S/o. Thangavel,
Door No.259, Perumal Koil Street,
Erivakkam,
Thimmasamuthiram,
Kancheepuram Taluk and District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its, Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI)
Department, Fort St.George,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Ranipet District,
Ranipet.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet, Ranipet District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Vellore, Vellore District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Arakkonam,
Ranipet District.
..Respondent(s)
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 03.06.2026 in B3/D.O.No.21/2026 against the petitioner's son viz. Harisanth, S/o.Mohan, aged about 33 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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 A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J.) The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu Harisanth, S/o.Mohan, aged about 33 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo B3/D.O.No.21/2026 dated 03.06.2026 branding him as a "Sexual Offender" 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. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu had not filed any application for bail in respect of the ground case so far. While so, the detaining authority, relying on another case stating it to be a similar case, has inferred that there 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.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the detenu, who is a music teacher by profession, committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim, aged about 14 years, and the detaining authority has rightly detained the detenu under the impugned detention order and hence, objected for quashing of the detention order.
5. When no such bail application has been filed by the detenu, there is no likelihood of the detenu being released on bail. Further, the similar case relied on also does not pertain to a co-accused and it pertains to a different crime number. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is an ipse dixit. 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. Hence, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground. However, it is made clear that quashing of the detention order will not have any bearing on the bail application to be filed by the detenu before the Court concerned. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent in in Memo B3/D.O.No.21/2026 dated 03.06.2026 is hereby set aside and the detenu viz. Harisanth, S/o.Mohan, aged about 33 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. (A.D.J.C.,J.) (B.K.,J.) 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsd
To
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.
5. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.
6. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order, Public Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
7. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J. AND B.KARTHIKEYAN J. nsd HCP No. 1121 of 2026 26-10-2026