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 · 411 wordsN. Anand Venkatesh, J
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, by name, Yuvaraj @ Yuvarajkumar, S/o. Kannan, aged 31 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.68/2025 dated 11.11.2025, 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.
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.
Apart from the other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised is that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the bail petition filed by the detenue was rejected and in spite of the same, the Detaining Authority took into consideration an order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2236 of 2023, dated 20.06.2023 and came to the conclusion that in a similar case, bail has been granted and therefore, there is a likelihood of the detenue being let 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 therefore, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.
In the case in hand, the detenue had three adverse cases apart from the ground case. The ground case was for various offences under BNS, 2023, Section 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. In the bail order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority as a similar case, it did not cover an offence under the TNPPDL Act. Apart from that, bail was granted on the ground that the investigation had been completed and the charge sheet had been filed. In the case in hand, the investigation was pending. Hence, the order that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority does not arise out of a similar case and consequently, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.68/2025, dated 11.11.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Yuvaraj @ Yuvarajkumar, S/o. Kannan, aged 31 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.