Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 27060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, P.DHANABAL, JJ
R.Muthudurai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.175 of 2026 | H.S.(M).Confdl No.101/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Pragalathan
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor
Detention order quashed for non-application of mind due to missing remand extension documents.
Headnote:The detention order classified the detenu as a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The petitioner's brother was detained by order dated 19-09-2025. The court found non-application of mind due to lack of supporting remand extension documents at pages 91 and 93 of the paper book. Issues framed included validity of detention satisfaction without material evidence of remand extensions to 17.09.2025 and 29.09.2025. The court held that absence of remand orders vitiated the authority's subjective satisfaction. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of detention order under goonda act. (Para 1) |
| 2. hearing arguments on remand extension grounds. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. non-application of mind for missing documents. (Para 4) |
| 4. detention quashed; detenu directed for release. (Para 5) |
(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)
The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, viz., Muthuraj, S/o.
Ramakrishnan, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in H.S.(M).Confdl No.101/2025, dated 19-09-2025, 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 grounds that was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Detaining Authority has stated in the detention order that the remand was extended up to 17.09.2025 and thereafter, it was again extended up to 29.09.2025 and it was contended that this satisfaction was arrived at by the Detaining Authority without any supporting material in the paper book that was furnished to the detenue.
4. We have carefully gone through the paper book and we find, at page Nos. 91 and 93 of the paper book, that a request has been made by the prison authorities through the Inspector of Police for extension of remand. However, the remand extension order is neither available for extension of remand up to 17.09.2025 nor for the further extension of remand up to 29.09.2025. Even without this material, the Detaining Authority has arrived at such a conclusion and the same clearly reflects non-application of mind.
5. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in H.S.(M).Confdl No.101/2025, dated 19-09-2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Muthuraj, S/o. Ramakrishnan, aged about 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
