Allowed¶32

P.Venkadesh v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC24 Mar 2026HCP(MD)/202/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preventive detention; habeas corpus; goonda detention; non-application of mind; reliance on dissimilar bail order Cr.M.P.No.8681 of 2024 dated 03.12.2024; Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 Section 2(f); BNS 2023 Sections 296(b), 109(1), 351(3); adverse case under Section 302 IPC in Crime No.341 of 2023; Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli City; Central Prison Palayamkottai; release of detenu Balu; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; N. Anand Venkatesh J. and K.K.Ramakrishnan J.; decided 24.03.2026; H.C.P.(MD)No.202 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Detention Order No.67/BBCDEFG1SSSV/2025 dated 23.09.2025 passed by the second respondent set aside; detenu Balu directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. ¶32

P.Venkadesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention order is vitiated by non-application of mind because the Detaining Authority relied on the order in Cr.M.P.No.8681 of 2024 dated 03.12.2024 — a dissimilar case in which the accused had no previous antecedents — to conclude that there was likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The order in Cr.M.P.No.8681 of 2024 relied on by the Detaining Authority is not a similar case to the detenu's case — in that case the accused persons had no previous case, the co-accused were enlarged on bail and the injured discharged from hospital — whereas the detenu here had a previous case; hence there is clear non-application of mind.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order in Detention Order No.67/BBCDEFG1SSSV/2025 dated 23.09.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside.

¶32

Key takeaways

The detenu, Balu, aged about 33 years, s/o. Packiasamy, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Petition (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) allowed; preventive detention order No. 67/BBCDEFG1SSSV/2025 dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, detaining Balu as a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, set aside on the ground of non-application of mind. The Detaining Authority had relied on the order in Cr.M.P.No.8681 of 2024 dated 03.12.2024 to conclude there was likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, but that order related to a dissimilar case in which the accused had no previous case, the co-accused were enlarged on bail and the injured discharged, whereas the detenu had an adverse case under Section 302 IPC (Crime No.341 of 2023) and the ground case was under Sections 296(b), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS 2023. The detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with any other case.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 24.03.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶7

H.C.P.(MD)No.202 of 2026

¶8

P.Venkadesh .. Petitioner / brother of the

¶9

detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its

¶12

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

¶13

State of Tamil Nadu,

¶14

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

¶15

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.

¶16

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents

¶17

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the second respondent in Detention Order No.

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

67/BBCDEFG1SSSV/2025, dated 23.09.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu, by name, Balu, aged about 33 years, s/o. Packiasamy, detained as “Goonda” at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, by name, Balu, aged about 33 years, s/o. Packiasamy, aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No. 67/BBCDEFG1SSSV/2025, dated 23.09.2025 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

Apart from the other grounds raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised is that the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.8681 of 2024 dated 03.12.2024 and has come to the conclusion that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail and whereas, the order that was referred is not a similar case to the case in hand and that there was one adverse case for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in Crime No.341 of 2023. The ground case is for the offence under Sections 296(b), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS 2023. Even though a bail application was moved, by the time it was considered, the detention order has been passed. In the order that was passed in Cr.M.P.No.8681 of 2024, the Court had taken into consideration the fact that there was no previous case against the accused persons therein and the co-accused were enlarged on bail and the injured had also been discharged from the hospital. That order certainly is not a similar case like the case in hand, since the detenu had a previous case. Hence, there is clear non-application of mind.

¶29

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order

¶30

of detention in Detention Order No.67/BBCDEFG1SSSV/2025 dated Page 3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

23.09.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Balu, aged about 33 years, s/o. Packiasamy, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶33

(N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 24.03.2026

¶34

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG

¶35

¶36