Madras High Court
HCP/1561/2026 of Annamalai Vs The State Rep by The Additional Chief Secretary to 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.1561 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011972742026}
Annamalai
S/o.Palani,
D.No.3/20, Valiyur Kottai,
Vellar, Mettur Taluk,
Salem District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State represented by
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort Saint George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Coimbatore District.
3. The Superintendent of Police
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison,
Coimbatore District.
5. The Inspector of Police
Kovilpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore 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 relating to the second respondent, pertaining to the detention order made in Cr.M.P.No.18/C.L.O./2026 dated 15.07.2026 in detaining the detenu under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 as Cyber Law Offender and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the said detenu viz. Arunachalam @ Arun, S/o.Annamalai, aged about 21 years, who is detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.Sakkarapani
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
1
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 Arunachalam @ Arun, S/o.Annamalai, aged about 21 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 15.07.2026 in Cr.M.P.No.18/C.L.O./2026 branding him as a "Cyber Law 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. Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped, as the detenu was arrested on 14.06.2026, but, the impugned detention order was passed on 15.07.2026.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the materials had to be collected and collated and time was consumed in this exercise.
5. As seen from the grounds of detention, it is clear that though the detenu was arrested on 14.06.2026, the order of detention came to be passed only on 15.07.2026 and hence, there is an abnormal delay in passing the order of detention, which caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu.
6. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. There is no satisfactory explanation offered by the Detaining Authority for the delay in passing the order of detention. Hence, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
7. In Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333, which arose under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, in Tirupura, after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 'live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping' point should be examined on a case to case basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Sushanta Kumar Banik (supra) that this point has two facets. One facet is 'unreasonable delay' and other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that this matter falls under latter facet i.e. unexplained delay. Hence, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 15.07.2026 in Cr.M.P.No.18/C.L.O./2026 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz., Arunachalam @ Arun, S/o.Annamalai, aged about 21 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 Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Fort Saint George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Coimbatore District.
3. The Superintendent of Police Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Coimbatore District.
5. The Inspector of Police Kovilpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore 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. 1561 of 2026 26-10-2026