BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA H.C.P(MD)No.1035 of 2025 Vachala ... Petitioner/Mother of the detenu Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Trichy City.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in proceedings C.No. 39/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025 dated 09.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu namely, Naveenkumar, S/o.Ramu, aged about 24 years, now he is confined in Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Naveenkumar, S/o.Palanivel, aged about 24 years. The detenu was detained by the second respondent by order in C.No.39/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2025, dated 09.04.2025, holding him to be a “Goonda”, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3.The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.03.2025, in the ground case registered in Crime No.233 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Trichy District for the offence under Section 309(6) and 311 of BNS, 2023. Apart from that, the detenu committed another crime in Crime No.854 of 2024 on the file of very same police station for the offence under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 103(2) of BNS, 2023. Therefore, the sponsoring authority sponsor the detenu name to detain under goondas. Considering the documents forwarded by the sponsoring authority the detaining authority detaining the detenu under goondas.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that there was a huge delay of 27 days in detaining the detenu under goondas. The petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2025 and the detaining authority passed order to detain the detenu only on 09.04.2025. Therefore, the live and proximity link between the grounds of goonda and for the purpose of detention has been snapped as petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2025. Further the petitioner was not served with translated version of the accident register of victim in Crime No.233 of 2025. He also raised another ground that the detaining authority to detaining the detenu that apart from the ground case and adverse case the detenu is habitual in committing robbery crime and he has acting in the manner prejudice to the public cause.

5. Even according to the sponsoring authority, the detenu had involved in only two cases in which one was registered for robbery in crime No.233 of 2025. The adverse case was registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 103(2) of BNS, 2023. It is completely non application of mind of the detaining authority to consider the case of the detenu to detain under goondas.

6. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed and also the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor reveals that though the petitioner was detained under goondas after a period of 27 days from arrest i.e., dated 11.03.2025. The detenu filed bail application and the same was dismissed on 08.04.2025. Therefore, only after dismissal of the bail application, the sponsoring authority collected the documents and c