CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Abirami vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 8 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 MAD CK 1369

HON’BLE JUDGES
N. Anand Venkatesh, J · K.K.Ramakrishnan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Tamil Nadu Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders And Slum- Grabbers, Act, 1982 — Section 2(f)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No. 1426 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 382 words

N. Anand Venkatesh, J

1.

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Gokulakannan, S/o. Manikandan, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Ref.SR.No46/Goonda/2025 dated 05.11.2025 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.

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.

3.

Apart from the other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu had not only filed any bail petition in the ground case and in spite of the same, the Detaining Authority took into consideration the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 12072 of 2025 dated 24.07.2025 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 relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not a similar case and therefore, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.

4.

We have carefully gone through the order passed in Crl.O.P. (MD).No.12072 of 2025 dated 24.07.2025. That was a case where there were no previous cases against the accused therein and the Court took into consideration the nature of offence and the incarceration suffered by the accused. In the case on hand, there is one adverse case against the detenu. Therefore, the detenu certainly has a previous case. Hence, the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not a similar case. Consequently, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.

5.

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Ref.SR.No46/Goonda/2025 dated 05.11.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Gokulakannan, S/o. Manikandan, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.