Dismissed

C. Angel v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Feb 2026HCP(MD)/976/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 for habeas corpus, the petitioner challenged a detention order classifying her husband as a 'Goonda'. The Court observed that providing the Tamil version of English documents did not cause prejudice, especially since the detenu was a habitual offender with a pending cases report available in Tamil. The petition was dismissed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the detention order was dismissed, upholding the order of the second respondent.

C. Angel Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD)No.976 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :05.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA

¶7

H.C.P.(MD)No.976 of 2025

C.Angel

... Petitioner

-vs-

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

¶12

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

¶13

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison

¶14

Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli

¶15

The Superintendent District Jail, Perurani Thoothukudi District ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

H.C.P.(MD)No.976 of 2025

¶20

H.S(M) Confdl.No.73 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's husband ie. Chandran, aged about 21 years. S/o.Sekar now detained at the District Jail, Peruruani, Thoothukudi District before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J. )

¶25

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Chandran, aged about 21 years. S/o.Sekar . The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in detention order in H.S(M) Confdl.No.73 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶26

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶27

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

¶28

H.C.P.(MD)No.976 of 2025

¶29

2. 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.

¶30

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a specific ground that the detenu was not provided with tamil version of the document which was annexed in page nos. 25,65,285,481 of the booklet. He also submitted representation dated 08.08.2025 and requested the Government to provide translated version of those pages. However it was not furnished to the detenu, hence he was not able to make effective representation to re-consider the order of detention.

¶31

A perusal of the counter affidavit and also persual of the proforma produced by the respondent reveals that no such

¶32

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶33

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

¶34

H.C.P.(MD)No.976 of 2025

¶35

representation was received by any one of the authority. The petitioner also failed to produce any proof that the said representation dated 08.08.2025 was sent to the authorities. That apart the detenue is a habitual offender and he is involved in 16 previous cases and the detenue is provided with remand report in which all the pending cases were mentioned in Tamil . That apart pages nos. 25 and 65 relates to cases in which the detenu involved so far. Therefore no prejudice caused to the detenu to make effective representation to re-consider the order of detention.

¶36

In view of the same, this Court finds no infirmity or

¶37

illegality in the order passed by the second respondent, hence the

¶38

petition stands dismissed.

¶39

[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 05.02.2026

¶40

NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No aav

¶41

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶42

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

¶43

H.C.P.(MD)No.976 of 2025

¶44

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli

¶48

The Superintendent District Jail, Perurani Thoothukudi District

¶49

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

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

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

¶52

H.C.P.(MD)No.976 of 2025

¶53

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J. AND R. POORNIMA,J.

¶54

aav

¶55

H.C.P.(MD)No.976 of 2025

¶56

05.02.2026

¶57

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶58

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

C. Angel v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Angel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandi Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thiruvadanai

Sakthivel Vs The State of Tamilnadu

The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Vs Bee Cee Fireworks Industries

R.Chinna Alagu @ Nalliappan Vs The Inspector of police

K.Sangeetha Vs The Manager

S.Keerthana Vs The State of Tamil Nadu