Allowed

Perumal v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC23 Jun 2025HCP(MD)/501/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition against a preventive detention order passed after the detenu allegedly murdered a neighbour following anticipatory bail in an adverse case. The court found the IO's appointment preceded the FIR and no public-order element existed, set aside the detention and ordered release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order No.53/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 03.09.2024 set aside; detenu Perumal directed to be released forthwith unless detained in any other case.

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

¶1

H.C.P(MD)No.501 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P(MD)No.501 of 2025

Perumal

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

¶12

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶13

Secretariat,

¶14

Chennai-600 009.

¶15

2.The Commissioner of Police,

¶16

Tirunelveli City,

¶17

Tirunelveli.

¶18

3.The Superintendent of Prison,

Central Prison,

Palayamkottai,

Tirunelveli.

... Respondents

Page No.1 of 7

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

¶25

PRAYER:

¶26

H.C.P(MD)No.501 of 2025

¶27

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in No.53/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 03.09.2024 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely, Perumal, aged about 55 years, S/o.Velu, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶29

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

¶30

The detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, dated 03.09.2024 is under challenge on the specific ground that the registration of the complaint under Section 302 of IPC, as well as appointing the Investigating officer, raises doubt about the integrity of the sponsoring authority. That apart the incident alleged to have occurred due to property dispute among neighbours, and in the absence of any element of threat to public order, invocation of Act 14 of 1982 is unconstitutional.

¶31

Page No.2 of 7

¶32

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

¶33

H.C.P(MD)No.501 of 2025

¶34

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.

¶35

This Court finds that, in view of the property dispute between neighbouring land owners, earlier a case in Crime No.63 of 2024 was registered by the Seethaparpanallur Police Station, based on a complaint given by Ameer Hamsa on 01.03.2024 for the alleged offences under Section 447, 120(b) of IPC and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property [Prevention of Damage and Loss] Act, 1992. The detenu had obtained anticipatory bail in the said case and on midnight of 05.08.2024 alleged to have trespassed into the shop of the deceased Ameer Hamsa along with co-accused and murdered him. In this connection, a case in Crime No.228 of 2024 for the offences under Section 103(1), 127(2), 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023, been registered on 06.08.2024 at 00.10 hours. The detention order been passed on 03.09.2024 citing the earlier case in Crime No.63 of 2024 as the adverse case and case registered in Crime No.228 of 2024 as the ground case.

¶36

Page No.3 of 7

¶37

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

¶38

H.C.P(MD)No.501 of 2025

¶39

The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police dated 05.08.2024, submits that the case in Crime No.228 of 2024 under Section 103(1) of BNS Act, was registered only on 06.08.2024. The proceedings appointing the Investigation Officer a day earlier indicate non-application of mind and possible manipulation of documents.

¶40

The counter filed by the respondents indicates that, since the occurrence took place during the night of 5^th and 6^th of August, the date mentioned as 05.08.2024 in the proceedings is an inadvertent error. The detaining authority, after considering the nature of the ground case, soon after obtaining anticipatory bail in the adverse case, had disturbed the public peace. Hence, the accused been preventively detained.

¶41

This Court finds that the occurrence alleged to have taken place at 10.45 p.m. inside the shop, in respect of the property dispute between two neighbours. The seal on the proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police clearly show that it was issued on

¶42

Page No.4 of 7

¶43

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

¶44

H.C.P(MD)No.501 of 2025

¶45

05.08.2024, whereas the First Information Report was registered only thereafter.

¶46

In view of the above fact, the detention order suffers want

¶47

of particulars regarding disturbance to public peace as well as non application of mind.

¶48

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the

¶49

order of detention in No.53/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 03.09.2024 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Perumal, aged about 55 years, S/o.Velu, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶50

[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 23.06.2025

¶51

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No rm

¶52

Page No.5 of 7

¶53

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

¶54

H.C.P(MD)No.501 of 2025

¶55

To: