Marytamilarasi Vs The Secretary to the Government

Prayer in HCP No. 2716 of 2025 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS or any other Writ or Order in the nature or writ call for the records in Connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent 18.11.2025 in D.O.NO.58/2025 C2 against the petitioner Husband TamilPandi Alias Pulipandi Male Aged 25 Years S/o.Balu who is confined at Central Prison Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Honble Court and set him at Liberty.

¶32

Prayer in HCP No. 2747 of 2025 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the

¶33

Constitution of India praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS or any

¶34

__________ Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

2026:MHC:2658

¶36

HCP Nos. 2716 & 2747 of 2025

¶37

other Writ or Order in the nature or writ call for the records in Connection with

¶38

the order of Detention passed by the second respondent 18.11.2025 in D.O.NO.57/2025 C2 against the petitioner Husband Thangapandi, male, aged 26 years, S/o. Balu who is confined at Central Prison Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Honble Court

¶39

and set him at Liberty.

¶40

(In both cases)

¶41

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

¶42

COMMON ORDER

¶43

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

¶44

We have heard Mr.D.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), learned counsel for the respondents in both HCP’s.

¶45

In HCP.No.2716 of 2026, the wife of one Tamilpandi @ Pulipandi, S/o. Balu, who was detained as a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’) has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 18.11.2025.

¶46

In HCP.No.2747 of 2026, the wife of one Thangapandi, S/o. Balu, who was detained as a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’) has approached this Court challenging the order of

¶47

__________ Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

2026:MHC:2658

¶49

HCP Nos. 2716 & 2747 of 2025

¶50

detention dated 18.11.2025.

¶51

One of the grounds on which the detention has been made is the subjective satisfaction of the authority that the detenus may be enlarged on bail. To this end there is long narration set out in paragraph 5 of the impugned order where he sets out the details of the bail applications filed by the detenu as well as various other co-accused in Cr. No. 280/2025.

¶52

As far as the detenus are concerned, they have moved bail that had come to be dismissed on 12.11.2025. No bail application has been filed thereafter. Hence, there need have been no further apprehension on this count on the part of the authority.

¶53

That apart, the authority refers to the case of a co-accused in Crl.O.P.606 of 2024 dated 18.01.2024, comparing the same to the present case, and basing his apprehension on the same. However, in that case, there was history to the matter in that there was a prior assault leading to the subsequent revenge assault. On the other hand, in the present case, there is a finding of fact that there was no previous enmity between the detenu and the injured. Hence, reliance on bail order dated 18.01.2024 is clearly misplaced.

¶54

In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another (2011 [5] SCC 244) , the Supreme Court had held that where the detention order is passed on irrelevant material, then, the detention order is liable to be quashed. Therefore, we are of the view that for the aforesaid reasons

¶55

the impugned detention orders are liable to be set aside.

¶56

__________ Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

2026:MHC:2658

¶58

HCP Nos. 2716 & 2747 of 2025

¶59