Allowed

Petchiammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC29 Apr 2026HCP(MD)/244/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged a Goonda detention order. The Detaining Authority had relied on an earlier bail order in a case without prior adverse cases, unlike the detenu who had three adverse cases. Holding this showed non-application of mind, the Court set aside the detention and ordered the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order No.83/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 21.11.2025 quashed; detenu Kandasamy @ Kannabiran Pandian directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

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

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 29.04.2026

¶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.244 of 2026

Petchiammal

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

¶12

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶13

Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

4.The Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records of pertaining to the order of detention dated 21.11.2025 passed by the second respondent in order No.83/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 and quash the same and produce the detenu, Kandasamy @ Kannabiran Pandian, S/o.Murugandi, aged about 46 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ashokkumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, by name, Kandasamy @ Kannabiran Pandian, S/o.Murugandi, aged about 46 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No. 83/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 21.11.2025, 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.

¶24

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶25

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

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

Apart from the other grounds that were raised by the learned

¶29

counsel appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised is that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that no bail petition was pending as on the date of passing of the detention order. But, however, the Detaining Authority has relied upon the order passed in Crl.M.P. (MD).No.795 of 2023 dated 23.01.2023 and came to a conclusion that bail has been granted in a similar case and therefore, there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned counsel submitted that the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not a similar case and therefore, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.

¶30

We have carefully gone through the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 795 of 2023 dated 23.01.2023. There is no indication in that order that there were previous cases against the accused therein. However, in the case in hand, the detenu had three adverse cases apart from the ground case. Therefore, the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority does not arise out of a similar case and consequently, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.83/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 21.11.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Kandasamy @ Kannabiran Pandian, S/o.Murugandi, aged about 46 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶34

(N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 29.04.2026

¶35

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG To

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

4.The Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶42

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

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶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.244 of 2026

¶48

29.04.2026

¶49

Page 6 of 6

¶50

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

Petchiammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Petchiammal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaguru Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kumbakonam East

Arjunan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Karaikudi

Sevugamoorthi, Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Koomapatty

Gopi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Pavithra Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

Gunasekaran Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prison