##PAGE1##

H.C.P. No.1961 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 30.01.2026

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

H.C.P. No.1961 of 2025

Jayakumari .. Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009

2. The Commissioner of Police

Greater Chennai, Vepery

Chennai – 600 007

3. The Superintendent of Prison

Central Prison at Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066

4. The Inspector of Police

D-5, Marina Police Station, Chennai .. Respondents

Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second

respondent dated 14.09.2025 in Memo No.692/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 against the

petitioner’s husband Moorthi S/o.Dhanapal, aged about 55 years who is confined at

Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to

produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor

assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

Page No . 1 / 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 03:21:39 pm )

H.C.P. No.1961 of 2025

ORDER

(The Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan, J)

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records in connection

with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 14.09.2025 in Memo

No.692/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner’s husband Moorthi S/o.Dhanapal,

aged about 55 years who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the

same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at

liberty.

2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner took several grounds to quash the

impugned order of detention, he focused mainly on the grounds that in the statements

recorded by the Sponsoring Authority, no date is mentioned. Even the Special Report

submitted by the Sponsoring Authority to the detaining authority, is nil dated. Further,

the detenu is a male, whereas in the Special Report submitted by the Sponsoring

Authority, it mentioned as the detenu has been detained in the Special Prison for

Women, Puzhal, which itself would show that while passing the order of detention, the

detaining authority had not applied its mind. Further, the arrest intimation with respect to

the last adverse case was served to the detenue on 14.09.2025 at 11.35 a.m. and the

detention order was passed on the same day and served to the detenu on the same day at

5.00 p.m. which is humanly not possible to go through the entire papers and prepare the

Page No . 2 / 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 03:21:39 pm )

H.C.P. No.1961 of 2025

necessary grounds to pass the detention order, as there are several statements mentioned

in the booklet submitted by the sponsoring authority. Further, the remand order dated

08.09.2025, the true copy was received by the police only on 18.09.2025. Therefore,

there is no possibility of placing the remand order before the detaining authority, as the

detention order was passed on 14.09.2025. Even the first statement made before the

doctor and the entry made in the Accident Register, it is mentioned as assault by 2

unknown persons. However, in the clear copy, there is no mentioning about the number

of persons, which also shows that the detention authority had not applied its mind.

Further, the detenu made a representation on 22.09.2025 and the same was not

considered and disposed within a reasonable time. Further, it is a case in counter.

However, the materials with respect to the counter case were not placed before the

detaining authority by the sponsoring authority which also vitiate the detention order.

Further, the accused who was granted bail in the similar case, referred to by the

detaining authority, has got only one previous case, whereas in the present case, there are

3 adverse cases an