Allowed

Manikandan @ Vatti Mani v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Preventive detention – Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982

Madras HC19 Jun 2026HCP(MD)/242/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging preventive detention of the detenu as a Goonda. The court found a 50-day delay between arrest and detention order unexplained, breaking the live link between grounds and purpose of detention, set aside the detention order, and directed release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order No.01/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 dated 06.01.2026 set aside; detenu Manikandan @ Vatti Mani directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Manikandan @ Vatti Mani Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 19.06.2026

¶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.242 of 2026

¶8

Manikandan @ Vatti Mani

¶9

.. Petitioner / detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.State of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

represented by the Principal Secretary to Government,

¶13

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶14

Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶15

2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶16

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai. .. Respondents

¶17

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 06.01.2026 passed by the second respondent in No.

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

01/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a “Goonda” and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely, Manikandan @ Vatti Mani, aged about 24 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner is the detenu, namely, Manikandan @ Vatti Mani, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.01/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 dated 06.01.2026 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 counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) 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

Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that the detenu was arrested on 17.11.2025, whereas, the detention order was passed only on 06.01.2026. Hence, there is a delay of 50 days in passing the detention order and this delay is totally unexplained.

¶29

In our considered view, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1333.

¶30

The detention order is vitiated due to the fact that there was three adverse cases and one ground case and the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of the detention is completely absent.

¶31

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.01/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 dated 06.01.2026 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., namely, Manikandan @

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

Vatti Mani, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless

¶35

his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶36

(N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 19.06.2026

¶37

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶41

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.

¶42

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

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

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

¶45

N. ANAND VENKATESH,J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

¶46

TSG

¶47

H.C.P.(MD)No.242 of 2026

¶48

19.06.2026

¶49

Page 5 of 5

¶50

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

Manikandan @ Vatti Mani v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan @ Vatti Mani 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

Valliyammal Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Pudukkottai

Vasantha Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

The General Manager Vs Vigneswaran

Duraipandi Vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Bazaar

Rani Vs G.Priya

The Branch Manager Vs S.Nirmala