BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HCP(MD)Sr.No.3815 of 2026 Chinnammal ... Petitioner -vs-

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

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

2. The District Collector/District Magistrate Collectorate O/o. District Collector and District Magistrate, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai

3. The Superintendent of Central Prison Trichy Central Prison Trichy ..Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Habeus Corpus calling for the entire records in Detention order in P.D.O.No.7 of 2025 dated 22.02.2025 passed by the second respondent against the petitioner's husband namely Rasu(55/2026) son of Raman and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu who is detained and confined at Trichy Central Prison and set him at liberty forthwith For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel for M/s.Roy and Roy Associates For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.]

The prayer in the petition is to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in P.D.O.No.7 of 2025 dated 22.02.2025 and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu who is detained and confined at Trichy Central Prison and set him at liberty forthwith.

2. The petitioner is none other than the wife of the detenu. Challenging the very same detention order she already filed HCP(MD) No.426 of 2025 and raised the following grounds:

a. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent without looking into the material placed before him, mechanically passed the order of detention against the detenue.

b. It is submitted that the order of approval of detention order was not at all served to the detenue and the petitioner claims doubt whether the detention is approved or not.

c. It is submitted that there is no material to show that the activities of the detenue is prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982.

d. It is submitted that the petitioner sent a representation dated

24.03.2025 to the 1 respondent and the said representation was neither considered nor rejected till date and the 1st respondent have violated the article 22 (5) of Constitution of India and this itself will vitiates the detention order.

e. It is submitted that in the grounds it has been stated that, in paragraphs No. 5.

5. I am aware that the Thiru. Rasu who is in remand in Pudukottai District Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department Cr.No. 01/2025. He has not filed any bail petition for this case so far. In a similar case in K.Pudupatti Police Station Cr.No. 12/2024 u/s 174 Code of Criminal Procedure @ 302, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 bail was granted to the accused Mohanraj in 37 days, who was remanded on 15.10.2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai in Cr.M.P.No. 1353/2024 dated 21.02.2024. Hence, I infer that there is a real possibility of his (Rasu) coming out on bail by filing bail petition before the appropriate court for the above case. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order. Further the resourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order this itself show clearly non application mind of the detaining authority.

f. It is submitted that the English version of the grounds of detention has not been properly translated in the tamil grounds of detention supplied to the detenue and it is important to note that even the copy of post mortem report was not translated and suppl