Allowed

Karthick v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its, The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

Madras HC24 Jun 2026HCP(MD)/352/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order branding the detenu a sexual offender. The court found the Detaining Authority relied on an inapplicable earlier bail order, showing non-application of mind, set aside the detention and ordered the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 21.01.2026 set aside; detenu Karthick directed to be released forthwith unless detained in any other case.

Karthick Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its, The Additional… — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 24.06.2026

¶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.352 of 2026

¶8

Karthick

¶9

.. Petitioner / detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep By,

¶12

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

¶13

Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept, Secretariat,

¶14

Chennai - 9.

¶15

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶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 entire records pertaining to the detention order passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.01/S.O/2026,

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

dated 21.01.2026 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu, by name, Karthick, son of Muthursami, aged about 36 years, as sexual offender who is detained in Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶21

For Petitioner

¶22

: Mr.Dr.R.Alagumani

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner is the detenu, by name, Karthick, son of Muthursami, aged about 36 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.01/S.O/2026, dated 21.01.2026 holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶27

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.

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

Apart from the other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised is that the detenu had filed a bail petition and the same came to be dismissed and as on the date of the passing of the detention order, no bail petition was pending. In spite of the same, the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.960 of 2024 and came to a conclusion that in a similar case, bail has been granted 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 did not arise out of a similar case and hence, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.

¶31

We carefully went through the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 960 of 2024. That was a case where statutory bail was granted by the concerned Court on the ground that investigation had not been completed within a period of ninety days. Therefore, the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority is certainly not a similar case and hence, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.01/S.O/2026, dated 21.01.2026 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Karthick, son of Muthursami, aged about 36 years is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶35

It is made clear that if the accused person moves a bail application before the concerned Court, the same shall be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law and the order passed in this petition will not have any bearing on the Court while deciding the bail petition.

¶36

(N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 24.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG To The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

¶37

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

TSG

¶46

H.C.P.(MD)No.352 of 2026

¶47

24.06.2026

¶48

Page 6 of 6

¶49

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

Karthick v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its, The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthick v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its, The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

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

Nivetha Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons

The Branch Manger Vs Magalingam

Rajakani Vs The Deputy Inspector of Prison

Josepin Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs L. Murugan

P.Kaleeswari Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government