Divya Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep by Secretary to Government

¶1

H.C.P.No.1782 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.04.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.1782 of 2025

¶7

Divya, F/A 26 yrs, W/o. Yogeswaran, Now residing at: No.1/2326, MGR Street, Sivanthi Aathithan Nagar, Attanthangal, Redhills, Tamil Nadu – 600 067. .. Petitioner

¶8

vs

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Govt. of Tamil nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City – 2, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Avadi, Chennai – 54.

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶12

4.The Inspector of Police, E-5, Sholavaram Police Station, Chennai – 600 067. .. Respondents

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

H.C.P.No.1782 of 2025

¶16

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent in No.114/TNPD/ACP/2025 quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner’s husband Santha @ Yogeswaran, S/o. Raja, aged 28 years, who is presently under going detention in Central Prison, Puzhal II, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Mohan

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶19

ORDER (Made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)

¶20

The wife of the detenu - Santha @ Yogeswaran, who has been

¶21

branded as Goonda under Section 2(f) passed under the provision of Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982, has challenged his detention order dated 01.08.2025.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶23

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the detaining authority has referred to the facts of the case relating to 2/5

¶25

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

¶26

H.C.P.No.1782 of 2025

¶27

the co-accused one Sathish @ Loosu Sathish in the impugned order, thereby suggesting that the detaining authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case.

¶28

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no answer to the above submission.

¶29

On a perusal of the grounds of detention at page 4, we find that the detaining authority has stated that the detention order has been passed against one Sathish @ Loosu Sathish. It appears that the said person is a co-accused in the ground case along with the detenu. It is also stated that a detention order had also been passed against Sathish @ Loosu Sathish. Presumably the portions in the grounds of detention supplied to the said detenu have been copied and pasted in this grounds of detention. This exhibits a total lack of application of mind and the fact that the order has been passed in a very mechanical manner. So, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed on this sole ground.

¶30