Habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court found non-application of mind where the detention relied on a bail application never filed and an unconnected co-accused case, set aside the detention order and directed release.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
H.C.P.No.2175 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.02.2026
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.2175 of 2025
S.Kulanthaivel
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in detention order in C.No.104/G/IS/2025 dated 23.06.2025 on the file of the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the son of the petitioner/detenue K.Aravinth S/o. Kulanthaivel, aged 26 years now confined in Central Prison at Coimbatore before this Court and set him at liberty.
1 / 5
H.C.P.No.2175 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Subadra Devi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John *******
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu K.Aravinth S/o. Kulanthaivel, male aged 26 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 23.06.2025 bearing C.No.104/G/IS/2025 under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982] r/w the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D) No.98, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIV) Department, dated 11.04.2025 under Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act.
2 We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3 Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition, assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned counsel for the
2 / 5
H.C.P.No.2175 of 2025
petitioner confined her argument only with regard to non application of mind, while passing the detention on the part of the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction regarding imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail.
4 The second respondent/detaining authority has passed the detention order after arriving subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail and in a similar case bail has been granted to the co-accused.
5 In the detention order, it was stated that steps are being taken to get bail for the detenue by filing application in the ground case and in the similar case in Cr.No.570/2022, bail was granted to the co-accused. But in the ground case no bail application has been filed by the petitioner and the case referred to by the detaining authority is no way connected with the present case and hence the detention order passed by the detaining authority shows non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Therefore we are inclined to set aside the detention order.
6 Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 23.06.2025 bearing C.No.104/G/IS/2025 detaining the petitioner’s son K.Aravinth S/o. Kulanthaivel, male, aged 26 years, who is
3 / 5
H.C.P.No.2175 of 2025
confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, is hereby set aside and the detenu K.Aravinth
[PVJ] [MJRJ]
10.02.2026
cgi
To
4 / 5
H.C.P.No.2175 of 2025
P.VELMURUGAN. J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
cgi
H.C.P.No.2175 of 2025
10.02.2026
5 / 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind in the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction on imminent possibility of bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Kulanthaivel
The State rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Chennai
The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison at Coimbatore
The Inspector of Police, D-5, Sundarapuram Police Station, Coimbatore District
P.Velmurugan
M.Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
