Allowed

Anjalai v. The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC10 Mar 2026HCP(MD)/1275/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition for habeas corpus. It set aside a detention order under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, finding the detaining authority failed to apply its mind by relying on an imperfectly similar past bail order in pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 06.10.2025 set aside and detenu directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

Anjalai Vs The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 10.03.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶7

H.C.P.(MD)No.1275 of 2025

¶8

Anjalai

¶9

.. Petitioner / mother of the detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli City.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichirappalli District. .....Respondents

¶14

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records pertaining to the detention order in C.No.71/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025, dated 06.10.2025 passed by the second respondent and set aside the same by setting the detenu, namely, Abishek @ Abi, S/o.Sakthivel, aged 23/2025 years and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison, Trichy.

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan for M/s.Aran Legal Consultancy For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)

¶20

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Abishek @ Abi, S/o.Sakthivel, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.71/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025, dated 06.10.2025, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶21

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶22

Apart from the other grounds raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised by the

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as on the date of the passing of the detention order, no bail petition was pending and the bail order that was referred by the Detaining Authority passed in Crl.M.P.No.140 of 2021 dated 11.01.2021 is not a similar case.

¶26

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that there was a communal clash, wherein caste Hindus attacked the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community. Therefore, in order to avoid any further clash to maintain peace and tranquility, the detention order was warranted.

¶27

On going through the detention order, it is seen that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that no bail petition was filed or pending on the side of the detenu. The Detaining Authority has relied upon the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.140 of 2021 dated 11.01.2021 and coming to a conclusion that in a similar case, the bail was granted and therefore, there is every chances of the detenu coming out of the bail indulging in further activities.

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

On carefully going through the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.140 of 2021, dated 11.01.2021, it is seen that in that case, investigation was completed and accused therein had suffered judicial custody for more than 74 days and therefore, the bail was granted. However, the case in hand, it was a solitary case involving a communal clash and investigation was pending.

¶31

Therefore, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.140 of 2021 dated 11.01.2021 cannot be considered to a similar case. This clearly reflects the non-application of mind.

¶32

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order passed by the second respondent in C.No.71/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025, dated 06.10.2025 is set aside. The detenu, viz., Abishek @ Abi, S/o.Sakthivel, aged about 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶33

(N.A.V.,J..) (P.D.B.,J.,) 10.03.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Indu

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu,

¶38

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Chennai-600 009.

¶39

2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli City.

¶40

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichirappalli District.

¶41

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

N. ANAND VENKATESH,J. AND P.DHANABAL,J.

¶45

Indu

¶46

H.C.P.(MD)No.1275 of 2025

¶47

10.03.2026

¶48

Page 6 of 6

¶49

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

Anjalai v. The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjalai v. The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thirunavukkarasu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Paneerselvam Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Manikandan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Oddanchatram

J.Jeeva Vs The Superintendent of Police

Palanivel Rajan @ Ptr Vinoth Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.Manimegalai Vs The Superintendent of Police - Dindigul