A habeas corpus petition challenging preventive detention as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court found non-application of mind: the Detaining Authority relied on a bail order from a dissimilar case despite no bail petition being filed. The detention was set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.06.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
H.C.P.(MD)No.421 of 2026
Seeni @ Srinivasan
.. Petitioner / detenu
Vs.
Chennai 600 009.
Rep by the District Magistrate and District Collector, O/o.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District,
.. Respondents
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
Page 1 of 6
Detention Order of the second respondent in Cr.MP.No.27/2025 dated Nil. 07.2025 and direct the respondent to produce the person Seeni @ Srinivasan, S/o.Maathappan, aged 35 years, now detained as Goonda at Trichy Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan, Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu, (Criminal Side)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)
The petitioner is the detenu, by name, Seeni @ Srinivasan, S/o.Maathappan, aged 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.MP.No.27/2025 dated Nil.07.2025 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.
Page 2 of 6
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 filed by the detenu and in spite of the same, the Detaining Authority proceeded to rely upon the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4374 of 2024 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 does not arise out of a similar case and hence, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the detenu was acquitted in the ground case by the trial Court in C.C.No.710 of 2025 by judgment dated 10.02.2026.
Page 3 of 6
2024 which was relied upon by the Detaining Authority. That was a case where the Court had taken into consideration the fact that the accused had suffered incarceration for nearly 46 days and therefore, bail was granted. In the case in hand, the detenu was arrested on 12.06.2025 and the detention order was passed on 02.07.2025 and that apart, no bail petition was filed by the detenu in the ground case. Therefore, the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority certainly does not arise out of a similar case. Hence, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.
(N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 02.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG
Page 4 of 6
To
Page 5 of 6
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
TSG
H.C.P.(MD)No.421 of 2026
02.06.2026
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the detention order suffered from non-application of mind because the Detaining Authority relied on a bail order in a dissimilar case though no bail petition was filed by the detenu.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Seeni @ Srinivasan
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy District
N. Anand Venkatesh
K.K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
