BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 29.08.2025 DELIVERED ON : 28.11.2025 THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE R. POORNIMA H.C.P. (MD) No.1383 of 2024 Sekar Petitioner vs.

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate Trichy

3. The Superintendent of Prison Trichy Central Prison Trichy District Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in Cr.M.P. No.14 of 2024 dated 03.09.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Balachandran, son of Sellan, aged about 64 years, now detained as Goonda at the Trichy Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty.

For petitioner Dr. R. Alagumani For respondents Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. A. Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. B. Nambiselvam Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

This habeas corpus petition calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the second respondent (for short “the impugned order”) in and by which the petitioner’s father Balachandran (hereinafter referred to as “the detenu”) has been branded as a Goonda and ordered to be detained at the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the grounds of detention which are just necessary for deciding this habeas corpus petition are as under:

2.1. On a complaint dated 08.07.2024 given by one Sakthivel stating that the detenu had murdered his mother at 6.30 a.m. on the said day, an FIR was registered against the detenu in Musiri P.S. Cr.No.182 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 296(b) and 103(1) of the BNS, 2023. On the same day, on a complaint given by one Kalarani stating that the detenu had murdered her husband Ramesh, an FIR was registered against the detenu in Jambunathapuram P.S.Cr.No.103 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 296(b) and 103(1) of the BNS, 2023 and the detenu was remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri till 22.07.2024 which was extended from time to time.

2.2. Satisfied with the adverse case and ground case, the second respondent clamped the impugned order on the detenu inter alia on the ground that taking recourse to ordinary criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities and holding so, branded him as a Goonda.

2.3. Thereagainst, the present habeas corpus petition has been filed.

3. At the threshold, it is worth pointing out that one of us (A.D.J.C.,J.), as a Single Bench, while dismissing Crl.O.P. No.31592 of 2024 (Ambeth @ Ambethkar vs. State) seeking bail, vide order dated 30.01.2025, finding that the petitioner therein was a history sheeter having 33 cases registered against him, deprecated the inordinate delay on the part of the police in proceeding with investigation, complying with non bailable warrants, filing of charge sheets and completing trial.

4. The aforesaid order in Crl.O.P.No.31592 of 2024 was adverted to by this Bench in Sabarikanthan vs. State and 2 others (H.C.P. No.1331 of 2024) while allowing the said case vide order dated 07.07.2025. In the order dated 07.07.2025, this Bench deprecated the practice of the police in taking recourse to the extraordinary measure of law of preventive detention qua habitual offenders in heinous cases, instead of resorting to filing of applications seeking cancellation of their bail.

5. Be that as it may, it is reported by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in Musiri P.S.C