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) 41443

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
Shanmugavel – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.81 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.R.Alagumani
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar

A detention order relying on non-similar bail order is invalid for non-application of mind.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged a detention order under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 classifying the detenu as a 'Goonda', claiming the detaining authority relied on a dissimilar bail order, resulting in non application of mind. The court found the order in Cr.M.P.No.3714 of 2025 was not comparable, as it considered completed investigation and incarceration period, rendering the detention order unsustainable. The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed and the detention order was quashed. The main issues included whether the detaining authority applied its mind and whether reliance on the cited case was justified. The court held that non-application of mind invalidates detention orders based on irrelevant or dissimilar precedents. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order dated 30.11.2025 is set aside.

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

The petitioner is the detenu viz.,Shanmugavel S/o.Karunakaran aged about 21 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.106/2025 dated 30.11.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of 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.

3. Apart from the other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel submitted that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that as on the date of passing of the detention order, no bail application was pending. However, the detaining authority took into consideration the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3714 of 2025 dated 04.09.2025 and came to the conclusion that bail has been granted in the similar case and therefore, there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned counsel submitted that the order that was relied upon by the detaining authority is not a similar case. Therefore, the detention order suffers from non application of mind.

4. We have carefully considered the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3714 of 2025 dated 04.09.2025. In that case, the investigation has almost been completed and the Court also took into consideration the period of incarceration suffered by the accused therein. The said order is not similar to the case in hand and therefore, the order that was relied upon by the detaining authority cannot be considered to be similar. Consequently, it suffers from non application of mind. Accordingly, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

5.. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.106/2025 dated 30.11.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Shanmugavel S/o.Karunakaran aged about 21 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