R.Ganesh v. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep.By Its, Secretary to Government,

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The brother of the detenu – R.Karthik, aged 30 years, S/o.Raji, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 30.09.2025, branding him as 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu for the respondents.

¶3The detention order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. Firstly, on perusal of records, it is seen that the special report sent by the sponsoring authority is undated. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would depend on the date on which the sponsoring authority has sent his report. In the absence of the said date, the special Page3 of 7 report would become irrelevant and the compelling necessity to detain the detenu becomes doubtful.

¶4Further in 'Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another' reported in '2011 [5] SCC 244', the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that where the detention order is passed on any irrelevant material, then, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

5.Secondly, it is seen from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has not moved any bail application, however, he has also stated that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing appropriate bail application. Admittedly, there was no material placed before the detaining authority that the detenu or his relatives were taking steps to file a bail application. In such circumstances, inference of the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to file a bail application and come out on bail is his mere ipse dixit. Since the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is without basis, the conclusion that the detenu would indulge in further criminal activities, is vitiated. Page4 of 7

6.Thirdly, it is seen from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has relied upon an order passed in Crl.MP.No.23 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur to arrive at a conclusion that in similar cases bail has been granted by the Courts and that therefore, the detenu is likely to be released on bail by filing the bail application.

¶7In the order relied upon by the detaining authority, it is seen that the Judicial Magistrate had granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., since the final report was not filed within the statutory period and not on merits. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said order by the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is misconceived. The inference that the detenu would indulge in further criminal activities after his release also is without any basis. For the above mentioned reasons, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶8In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No.129/2025 dated 30.09.2025, is set aside. Page5 of 7

¶9The detenu, viz., R.Karthik, aged 30 years, S/o.Raji, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 06-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order TSG Note: Issue order copy today To

¶1The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, (Home), Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

¶4The Inspector of Police, T-15, Kannagi Nagar Police Station, Chennai. Page6 of 7

¶5The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai

¶6The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. HCPoNo.o2675oofo2025 DR.ANITAoSUMANTH,oJ. AND SUNDERoMOHAN,oJ. TSG HCPoNo.o2675oofo2025 06-07-2026 Page7oofo7

Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN R.Ganesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, (Home), Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police, T-15, Kannagi Nagar Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detenu's detention order passed by the 2nd respondent BBCDEFGISSSV No.129/2025 dated 30.09.2025 and set aside the same and produce the detenu R. Karthik male aged about 30 years S/o. Raji, Page2 of 7 now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Dhanasekar For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)