Allowed¶38

Muralidass v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC12 Mar 2026HCP/2297/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preventive detention; Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982; Section 2(f); Goonda; habeas corpus allowed; detention order set aside where no bail application filed or likely; Sponsoring Authority's bail apprehension insufficient; five adverse cases; ground case of robbery; detenu M.Srikanth released from Central Prison-II, Puzhal; Commissioner of Police Tambaram City; BCDFGISSSV No.76/2025 dated 05.07.2025; HCP No. 2297 of 2025; Article 226 Constitution of India; 2026:MHC:1028.

What did the court decide?

Detention Order BCDFGISSSV No.76/2025 dated 05.07.2025 set aside; detenu M.Srikanth directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. ¶38

Muralidass Vs the Secretary to the Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Detention Order BCDFGISSSV No.76/2025 dated 05.07.2025 set aside; detenu M.Srikanth directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the preventive detention order dated 05.07.2025 (No.76/BCDFGISSSV/2025) branding the detenu M.Srikanth a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 is sustainable, given that no bail application had been filed or was contemplated by the detenu or his relatives/friends.

¶37

Court's answer

Since no bail application had been filed or was intended, and no statement from the detenu's relatives or friends created any apprehension that one would be moved, the impugned detention order — resting only on the Sponsoring Authority's anticipation of bail — has no merit.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.76/2025 dated 05.07.2025 is set aside.

¶38

Key takeaways

The detenu M.Srikanth, confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench: Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth, author, and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan) allowed Habeas Corpus Petition HCP No. 2297 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2026:MHC:1028, order dated 12-03-2026) and set aside the preventive detention of M.Srikanth (male, 22 years, son of petitioner Muralidass), who had been branded a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 by detention order No.76/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 05.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City. The detention rested on a ground case of robbery and five adverse cases, with the Sponsoring Authority indicating a chance of the detenu availing bail. Holding that no bail application had been filed or was intended and no statement from relatives or friends created any apprehension of one being moved, the Court found the impugned detention order devoid of merit, set it aside, and directed that the detenu, confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence was required in any other case.

¶1

2026:MHC:1028

¶2

HCP No. 2297 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 12-03-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶9

HCP No. 2297 of 2025

¶10

Muralidass

¶11

S/o.Chellappan, No.4/410, Sengeniyamman Koil Street, Balamma Nagar, Thaiyur, Kancheepuram-603 103.

¶12

..Petitioner(s)

¶13

¶14

The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶15

The Commissioner of Police, O/o. The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.

¶16

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

¶17

The Inspector of Police, T-19, Kelambakkam Police Station, Kelambakkam, Chennai -603 103.

¶18

..Respondent(s)

¶19

Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to produce the detenu M.Srikanth,

¶20

Page1 of 4

¶21

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

¶22

HCP No. 2297 of 2025

¶23

male aged 22 years, S/o.Muralidass who is detained in Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon’ble Court and pass an order to call for the records of detention order passed by the second respondent in No.76/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 05.07.2025 against the petitioner’s son M.Srikanth and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty.

¶24

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Dhanasekar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted By Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

¶27

We have heard Mr.D.Dhanasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶28

Mr.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

The challenge is to an order of detention dated 05.07.2025, whereunder the detenu M.Srikanth, male aged 22 years, S/o.Muralidass, 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’).

¶30

The grounds for detention are that the ground case relates to robbery

¶31

and there were five adverse cases against him. The Sponsoring Authority has also indicated that there is a chance of the detenu availing bail.

¶32

__________ Page2 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

HCP No. 2297 of 2025

¶35

However, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that no

¶36

bail application has been filed and they do not intend to do so.

¶37

Seeing as no bail application has been filed and no statement has been recorded from the relatives or friends that may lead to an apprehension that such a bail application would be moved, there is no merit in the impugned detention order that has been passed.

¶38

Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.76/2025 dated 05.07.2025 is hereby set aside.

¶39

The detenu, viz., M.Srikanth, S/o.Muralidass, male aged 22 years, who

¶40

is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other

¶41

case.

¶42

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 12-03-2026

¶43

Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes

¶44

¶45

Note: Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order today.

¶46

Page3 of 4

¶47