Allowed

S.R. Karuppasamy v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC30 Apr 2026HCP(MD)/546/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Father's habeas corpus petition challenged his son's Goonda Act detention order. The court found a 28-day unexplained delay between arrest and detention order and absence of a live and proximate link, followed Sushanta Kumar Banik, set aside the detention order and directed release of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

Detention order HS(M) Confdl. No.64/2025 set aside; detenu Nagarajan @ Nagaraj directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

S.R. Karuppasamy Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 30.04.2026

¶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.546 of 2026

¶8

S.R.Karuppasamy

¶9

.. Petitioner / father of the detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by

¶12

the Additional Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶13

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶14

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

¶15

4.The Superintendent District Jail Perurani Thoothukudi District

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

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 passed in HS(M) Confdl. No.64/2025 dated 01.07.2025 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son ie., Nagarajan @ Nagaraj, aged about 19 years, S/o.Karuppasamy now detained at the District Jail, Perurani, Thoothukudi District before this court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner is the father of the detenu, by name, Nagarajan @ Nagaraj, S/o. Karuppasamy, aged about 19 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in detention order No. HS(M) Confdl. No.64/2025 dated 01.07.2025 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.

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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 detenu was arrested on 03.06.2025, whereas, the detention order was passed only on 01.07.2025. There is a delay of 28 days in passing the detention order and this delay is totally unexplained.

¶28

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.

¶29

The detention order is vitiated due to the fact that there was a solitary case and the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of the detention is completely absent. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the detained order passed by the second respondent.

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

of detention in HS(M) Confdl. No.64/2025 dated 01.07.2025 passed by the

¶34

second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Nagarajan @ Nagaraj, S/o. Karuppasamy, aged about 19 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶35

(N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 30.04.2026

¶36

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RR To

¶37

1.The Additional Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶38

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶39

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

¶40

4.The Superintendent District Jail Perurani Thoothukudi District

¶41

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

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

H.C.P.(MD)No.546 of 2026

¶47

30.04.2026

¶48

Page 5 of 5

¶49

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

S.R. Karuppasamy v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.R. Karuppasamy v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

Petchiammal Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Gopi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Pavithra Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prison

Vignesh @ Vicky Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thanjavur Town East

Safana Banu Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep by its

Vinitha Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prison