Allowed¶36

Muthu v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC18 Mar 2026HCP/1841/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preventive detention — Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982, S.2(f) — Goonda — habeas corpus — non-application of mind — bail application dismissed on 11.08.2025 but recorded as pending in detention order dated 19.08.2025 — detention order set aside — detenu ordered released forthwith — Madras High Court — HCP No. 1841 of 2025 — order by Sunder Mohan J. with Anita Sumanth J. on bench.

What did the court decide?

Detention Order in S.C.No.14/2025/C1 dated 19.08.2025 set aside; detenu Muthu directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case ¶36

Muthu Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Detention Order in S.C.No.14/2025/C1 dated 19.08.2025 set aside; detenu Muthu directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention order dated 19.08.2025 is vitiated by non-application of mind because the detaining authority recorded the detenu's bail application as pending without referring to its dismissal on 11.08.2025, which occurred prior to the detention order

¶32

Court's answer

The detention order dated 19.08.2025 suffers from non-application of mind as the detaining authority failed to consider the relevant material, namely the dismissal of the detenu's bail application on 11.08.2025, and is therefore liable to be set aside

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in S.C.No.14/2025/C1 dated 19.08.2025 is set aside

¶36

Key takeaways

The detenu Muthu, S/o.Mookkan, confined in Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other caseratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a preventive detention order dated 19.08.2025 (No. SC.No.14/2025/C1) passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri, branding the detenu Muthu as a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982. The detaining authority had recorded in the detention order that the detenu's bail application in Crl.M.P.No.775 of 2021 was pending, whereas the records showed it had been dismissed on 11.08.2025, prior to the detention order — a fact confirmed by the Additional Public Prosecutor. Holding that the failure to consider this relevant material rendered the detention order suffer from non-application of mind, the Court (order by Sunder Mohan J.) allowed the petition, set aside the detention order, and directed the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence was required in connection with any other case.

¶1

HCP No. 1841 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

HCP No. 1841 of 2025

¶9

Muthu

¶10

S/o. Mookkan, Door No. 03/33, Attiyanur Colony, Thadhampatti, Agraharam Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District. Now Confining at Central Prison, Salem.

¶11

..Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

¶14

The District Magistrate and District Collector, office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District.

¶16

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison at Salem, Hasthampatty, Salem.

¶17

__________ Page1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

HCP No. 1841 of 2025

¶20

The Inspector of Police Hasur Police Station, Dharmapuri.

¶21

..Respondent(s)

¶22

Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records in Detention order in No. SC.No.14/2025/C1 dated 19.08.2025 on the file of the 2^nd Respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner/ detenu Mr.Muthu S/o.Mookkan aged about 50 years now confined in Central Prison at Salem before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. M. Sylvester John

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.)

¶26

We have heard Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶27

__________ Page2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

HCP No. 1841 of 2025

¶30

The challenge is to an order of detention dated 19.08.2025, whereunder

¶31

the detenu Muthu, male aged 50 years, S/o.Mookkan, has been branded as a Goonda in terms of Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (in short ‘Act’).

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detention order is liable to be set aside as it suffers from non-application of mind, inasmuch as the detaining authority while recording the fact that the petitioner’s bail application is pending has not referred to the dismissal of the same on 11.08.2025, much prior to the detention order.

¶33

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor confirms that the petitioner’s bail application was dismissed on 11.08.2025.

¶34

It is seen from the impugned order of detention dated 19.08.2025 that the detaining authority had observed that the detenu’s bail application is pending in Crl.M.P.No.775 of 2021. The records reveal that such bail application was dismissed on 11.08.2025. Since the detaining authority has not considered the relevant material, the detention order suffers from nonapplication of mind and is liable to be set aside.

¶35