Allowed

Kalidoss v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC25 Feb 2026HCP(MD)/1338/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus challenge to a Goonda detention order. The court found an unexplained delay of about a month between the detenu's arrest and the detention order, snapping the live and proximate link, set aside the detention and directed release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order No.36/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.08.2025 set aside; detenu Kalidass directed to be released forthwith unless detained in any other case.

Kalidoss Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD)No.1338 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :25.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA

¶7

H.C.P.(MD)No.1338 of 2025

Kalidoss

... Petitioner

-vs-

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

¶12

The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George,

¶13

Chennai - 600 009.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Madurai

¶15

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai -625 016

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the

¶18

Page 1 of 8

¶19

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

¶20

H.C.P.(MD)No.1338 of 2025

¶21

entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in No.36/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.08.2025 and quash the same direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Kalidass son of Nallamuthu aged about 30 years now detained as “Goonda” at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith

¶22

For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J. )

¶26

The petitioner is the detenu viz., Palaniyappan @ Pambu Palani son of Murugesan aged about 35 years . The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No. 36/ BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.08.2025 holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas

¶27

corpus petition.

¶28

_____________ Page 2 of 8_

¶29

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

¶30

H.C.P.(MD)No.1338 of 2025

¶31

2. 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.

¶32

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that there is an inordinate delay between the arrest of the detenu and passing the impugned detention order. In this case, the detenu was arrested on 21.07..2025, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 25.08. 2025, i.e., after a lapse of one month. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the same. He further submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.

¶33

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶34

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

¶35

H.C.P.(MD)No.1338 of 2025

¶36

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

¶37

the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though there was a delay in passing the impugned detention order, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

¶38

5. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early

¶39

as on 21.07.2025 and the detention order was passed on 25.08.2025. This shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which is also unexplained. The live and proximate link between the arrest of the detenu and the need for passing the order of detention has snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

¶40

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶41

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

¶42

H.C.P.(MD)No.1338 of 2025

¶43

6. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333 , when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order unless such delay is satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

¶44

"20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay

¶45

_____________ Page 5 of 8_

¶46

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

¶47

H.C.P.(MD)No.1338 of 2025

¶48

unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the “live and proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case."

¶49

7. In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel

¶50

for the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order.

¶51

8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.36/ BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.08.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Kalidass son of Nallamuthu aged about 30 years is

¶52

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶53

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

¶54

H.C.P.(MD)No.1338 of 2025

¶55

directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶56

[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 25.02.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No aav To

¶57

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

¶58

The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Madurai

¶59

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai -625 016

¶60

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

¶61

_____________ Page 7 of 8_

¶62

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

¶63

H.C.P.(MD)No.1338 of 2025

¶64

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J. AND R. POORNIMA,J.

¶65

aav

¶66

H.C.P.(MD)No.1338 of 2025

¶67

25.02.2026

¶68

_____________ Page 8 of 8_

¶69

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

Kalidoss v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalidoss v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Muthupandi.K Vs The Home Secretary

Senthilkumar Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Tiruchendur

Yasar Arafath Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Melapalayam

Akash Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nachiyarkovil

Selvi Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Ajith @ Nalla Mohamed Vs The Inspector of Police