Madras High Court
HCP(MD)/1166/2026 of Rani Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government on 4 November 2026
HCP(MD) No. 1166 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.GUNASEKARAN
HCP(MD) No. 1166 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011277262026}
Rani
W/o.Kompaiah,
No.92A,
MGR Nagar,
Tenkasi.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tenkasi District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Petition filed under section TN Act 14 of 82 H2-Go. To issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.H.S.Confdl No.84/2026 dated 28.07.2026 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Kompaiah,S/o.Raj aged about 30 years now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty
HCP(MD) No. 1166 of 2026
For Petitioner(s)
:M/s P. Chellappandian
For Respondent(s)
:M/s.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
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
(Order of the Court was made by N. GUNASEKARAN J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenue, viz., Kompaiah,S/o.Raj aged about 30 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent pursuant to the detention order passed in Detention order in M.H.S.Confdl No.84/2026 dated 28.07.2026 , branding him as a “Goonda” as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order of detention is under challenge in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner assailing the impugned order of detention, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to the ground that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, without disclosing the facts relating to the similar case relied upon and without furnishing the supporting materials, is merely a ipse dixit. It is further contended that the detenu had not filed any application for bail and the particulars of the similar case furnished by the detaining authority are not similar in nature to the case on hand. Therefore, there
HCP(MD) No. 1166 of 2026 was no proper application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned detention order.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that in the ground case investigation was completed and final report has been filed before the concerned Court and the same was taken on file in PRC No.48 of 2026
5. The issue raised in the present Habeas Corpus Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 976 : (2026) SCC 976, wherein it has been held that there must be cogent material on record on the basis of which a reasonable satisfaction could be arrived at by the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. In the absence of such cogent material, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail cannot be sustained. In the present case, having
HCP(MD) No. 1166 of 2026 regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that there was no cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which such satisfaction could have been arrived at. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority suffers from non-application of mind and cannot be sustained.
6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order of detention. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed by the second respondent in Detention order in Detention order in M.H.S.Confdl No.84/2026 dated 28.07.2026 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Kompaiah,S/o.Raj aged about 30 years, who is presently detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. The quashing of the detention order will not have any right for the petitioner for bail in the ground case. (M.N.K.,J.) (N.G.N.,J.) 04-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AAV
HCP(MD) No. 1166 of 2026 To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Chennai-9
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tenkasi District
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkottai
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai
HCP(MD) No. 1166 of 2026 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. AND N.GUNASEKARAN, J. AAV HCP(MD) No. 1166 of 2026 04-11-2026