SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19080

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, P.DHANABAL, JJ
Rojabanu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.1305 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar for Mr.R.Alagumani
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

The detaining authority must apply relevant legal precedents consistently, ensuring fair consideration of cases before issuing detention orders.

Headnote:This judgment concerns a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Habeas Corpus against the detention of the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court found a non-application of mind by the detaining authority in considering prior bail orders, concluding the detenu's situation was dissimilar. Consequently, it ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the habeas corpus petition and setting aside the detention order.

Table of Content
1. petitioner is mother of detenu challenging detention. (Para 1)
2. arguments against lack of proper consideration of bail orders. (Para 3)
3. court's observation on non-application of mind by authority. (Para 4)
4. final ruling to release the detenu. (Para 5)

(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Aamu @ Rafeek Raja, S/o. Raman @ Rahamathulla, aged 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention order No.53/2025, dated 31.08.2025 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. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, one of the main ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority had taken into consideration the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.7 of 2024 dated 04.01.2024 and came to a conclusion that it is a similar order granting bail to the accused therein and therefore there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail petition.

4. In our considered view, the detenu had not filed any bail petition before any Court on the date of passing of the detention order. That apart, the detenu had three adverse cases apart from the ground case and therefore, there was a previous antecedent for the petitioner. However, in the bail order that was relied upon by the detaining authority, it is seen that there was no previous antecedents for the accused therein and the concerned Court had taken into consideration the bail granted to the co-accused and also considered the period of incarceration suffered by the accused therein. Therefore, by no stretch, the said bail order can be considered to be a similar case. Accordingly, there is a clear non-application of mind.

5. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention order No.53/2025, dated 31.08.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Aamu @ Rafeek Raja, S/o. Raman @ Rahamathulla, aged 22 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top