Dismissed¶42

Petchiyammal v. The State of Tamilnadu

Habeas Corpus – Preventive detention

Madras HC5 Jan 2026HCP(MD)/1286/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preventive detention; habeas corpus; writ of habeas corpus under Article 226; Act 14 of 1982; detention order M.H.S.Confdl. No.49 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025; District Collector and District Magistrate Tirunelveli; sponsoring authority need not collect all materials; two adverse cases and one ground case; seven similar cases; non-service of remand extension order and remand report; detenue Valathi alias Arumugam; Central Prison Palayamkottai; detention order upheld; HCP(MD) dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Though the petitioner was involved in several cases, the sponsoring authority need not collect all materials to detain the detenu under Act. 14 of 1982; therefore the Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the detention order passed by the second respondent. ¶38

Petchiyammal Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

HCP(MD)No.1286 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.01.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶8

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1286 of 2025

Petchiyammal

... Petitioner

vs.

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

¶13

The District Collector and District Magistrate Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli

¶14

The Inspector of Police Gangaikondan Police Station Tirunelveli District

¶15

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkotai, Tirunelveli

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶18

India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records pertaining

¶19

Page No.1 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

HCP(MD)No.1286 of 2025

¶22

to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in M.H.S.Confdl. No.49 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 and quash

¶23

the same as illegal and produce the detenue namely Valathi alias Arumugam, S/o.Arumugam aged about 23 years now he is confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

¶25

For Respondents: Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

[Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J. ]

¶28

This Habeus Corpus Petition has been filed to quash the detention order passed by the second respondent in M.H.S.Confdl. No. 49 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 and direct the respondents to produce the detenue namely Valathi alias Arumugam, S/o.Arumugam aged about 23 years now he is confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

¶29

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶30

and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶31

Page No.2 of 5

¶32

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

¶33

HCP(MD)No.1286 of 2025

¶34

respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶36

submit that the petitioner was not served with the remand extension order. Though the detenu was involved in several other cases, he was not served with the remand report in all those cases.

¶37

A perusal of the counter filed by the respondent and also the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner was so far involved in seven similar cases the sponsoring authority has shown only two adverse cases and one ground case.

¶38

Though the petitioner was involved in several cases, the sponsoring authority need not collect all materials to detain the detenu under Act. 14 of 1982, therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent.

¶39

Page No.3 of 5

¶40

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

¶41

HCP(MD)No.1286 of 2025

¶42