Allowed

Dasthagir v. Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Madras HC2 Jul 2026HCP/2535/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition by the father of a detenu branded a Goonda under preventive detention. The court quashed the detention order: bail inference was ipse dixit, the arrest intimation lacked signatures, and an illegible booklet page denied effective representation. The detenu was set at liberty.

What did the court decide?

Detention order in Cr.M.P.No.91/GOONDA/2025 dated 30.10.2025 set aside; detenu Irfan Sherif to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

Dasthagir Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

HCP No. 2535 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

HCP No. 2535 of 2025

Dasthagir

..Petitioner(s)

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District.

¶15

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶16

The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur District, Crime No.1020 of 2025.

¶17

..Respondent(s)

¶18

__________ Page1 of 7

¶19

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

¶20

HCP No. 2535 of 2025

¶21

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in Cr.M.P.No.91/GOONDA/2025 dated 30.10.2025, on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce petitioners son Irfan Sherif, Aged 34 yrs, S/o, Dastagir, who is now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Silambuselvan For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

The father of the detenu – Irfan Sherif, aged 34 years, S/o. Dasthagir, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 30.10.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

¶27

for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents.

¶28

__________ Page2 of 7

¶29

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

¶30

HCP No. 2535 of 2025

¶31

3.The impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. The detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu is in remand; that he has not moved any bail application; and that there is a possibility of him coming out on bail in future. Admittedly, there was no material placed before the detaining authority that the detenu or his relatives were taking steps to file a bail application. In such circumstances, inference of the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to file a bail application and come out on bail is his mere ipse dixit . Since the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is without basis, the conclusion that the detenu would indulge in further criminal activities, is vitiated.

¶32

4.Secondly, we find that the Arrest Intimation which is furnished to the detenu does not appear to be a correct document as neither the signature of the accused nor that of the witness is found in the said intimation. Therefore, the Detaining Authority ought not to have relied upon such a document.

¶33

5.Thirdly, we find that Page No.11 of the booklet supplied to the detenu is illegible. This amounts to non furnishing of document, which would deprive the detenu of his right to make effective representation.

¶34

Page3 of 7

¶35

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

¶36

HCP No. 2535 of 2025

¶37

6.In this context, it is useful to refer to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'.

¶38

“9. However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the nonsupply of such a document would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language.

¶39

..... 16. For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We,

¶40

Page4 of 7

¶41

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

¶42

HCP No. 2535 of 2025

¶43

therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed. ”

¶44

For all the above said reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶45

7.In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is

¶46

allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.91/GOONDA/2025 dated 30.10.2025, is set aside.

¶47

The detenu, viz., Irfan Sherif, S/o. Dasthagir, aged 34 years, who is

¶48

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

¶49

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 02-07-2026

¶50

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG

¶51

Note: Issue order copy today

¶52

__________ Page5 of 7

¶53

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

¶54

HCP No. 2535 of 2025

¶55

¶56

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶57

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶58

The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District.

¶59

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶60

The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur District, Crime No.1020 of 2025.

¶61

The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai

¶62

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶63

__________ Page6 of 7

¶64

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

¶65

HCP No. 2535 of 2025

¶66

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶67

TSG

¶68

HCP No. 2535 of 2025

¶69

02-07-2026

¶70

__________ Page7 of 7

¶71

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

Dasthagir v. Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasthagir v. Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanthi Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Valli Vs State of Tamilnadu rep.by, The Additional Chief Secretary to Governmnet

Syedul Ali Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Moses Vs The State rep.by its

Thenmozhi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its

A.Logeshwari Vs The Secretary to the Government