Allowed

Vinothkumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Aug 2025HCP(MD)/1578/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order branding the detenu a sexual offender under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court found nothing on record substantiating that the detenu's wife was pursuing bail in the ground case, holding the detention order vitiated by non-application of mind, quashed it and directed release.

What did the court decide?

Order of detention in P.D.No.63 of 2024 set aside; detenu Vinothkumar directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Vinothkumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

HCP(MD)No. 1578 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1578 of 2024

Vinothkumar

... Petitioner

vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.

¶11

The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichirappalli, Tirchirappalli District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records, relating to the impuged order of detention made in P.D.No.63 of 2024, dated 23.11.2024 on the file of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, the 2^nd respondent herein, branding the detenue by name Vinothkumar aged about 32

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Page No.1 of 6

¶16

HCP(MD)No. 1578 of 2024

¶17

years, S/o. Manavalan, as “Sexual Offender”, who is now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli and quash the impugned order of detention and set hhim at liberty by producing petitioner before this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M. Karunakaran

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. ]

¶22

The petitioner is the detenu viz., Vinothkumar, S/o. Manavalan, aged about 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.63 of 2024, dated 23.11.2024, holding him to be a "sexual offender”, as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶23

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.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that,

¶25

though in paragraph No. 7 of the grounds of detention it is stated that Tmt.

¶26

Page No.2 of 6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

HCP(MD)No. 1578 of 2024

¶29

Priyanka, wife of Vinothkumar, is taking action to take out her husband Vinothkumar, on bail in the ground case, there is no material evidence to substantiate this claim. Therefore, it is evident that the detaining authority, without sufficient material, has mechanically arrived at the subjective satisfaction based solely on the information provided by the sponsoring authority. As such, the entire detention order stands vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

¶30

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted

¶31

that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order with proper application of mind and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

¶32

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that there is nothing on record to show that Tmt. Priyanka, wife of Vinothkumar, is taking steps to take out her husband viz., Vinothkumar, on bail in the ground case. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Page No.3 of 6

¶35

HCP(MD)No. 1578 of 2024

¶36

In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order.

¶37

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.No.63 of 2024, dated 23.11.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vinothkumar, S/o. Manavalan, aged about 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶38

[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 05.08.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No trp

¶39

To:

¶40

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.

¶41

The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Page No.4 of 6

¶44

HCP(MD)No. 1578 of 2024

¶45

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichirappalli, Tirchirappalli District.

¶46

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madars High Court, Madurai.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Page No.5 of 6

¶49

HCP(MD)No. 1578 of 2024

¶50

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.

¶51

trp

¶52

ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No. 1578 of 2024

¶53

DATED : 05.08.2025

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

Page No.6 of 6

Vinothkumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinothkumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Tvl. Jeyaraj Trucks And Buses

Suresh Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Marikkannu Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services

Gandhi Vs The Inspector General of Prisons

Santhi Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Nattamai @ Natarajan Vs The State of Tamilnadu