G. Manimekalai vs The State of Tamilnadu

Court
Madras High Court

HCP(MD) No. 1132 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.GUNASEKARAN
HCP(MD) No. 1132 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011227782026}
G. Manimekalai
W/o.Govindaraj,
No.316, Middle Street,
Perumangalam,
Senkalipuram Post,
Kudavasal Taluk,
Tiruvarur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep by,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise dept,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
District Collector's Office,
Tiruvarur District.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
4. The Inspector of Police
O/o.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Kodavasal,
Nannilam,
Tiruvarur district.
__________
Page  1  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:52:59 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1132 of 2026
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Petition filed under section Sexual Offender H2-SXO.
To call for the entire records connected with the order of detention passed
by the 2nd respondent in C.O.C.No.11/2026 dated 28.05.2026 quash the
same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the
petitioner's husband / detenu namely, Thiru Govindaraj aged 65 years So
Singaru., confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and
set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s S.Ramasundarvijayraj
for M/s.Veera Associates
For Respondent(s) :Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M. NIRMAL KUMAR J.)
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Govindaraj
aged 65 years s/o Singaru . The detenu has been detained by the second
C.O.C.No.11/2026 dated 28.05.2026
respondent by his order in holding
him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg)
of 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.
__________
Page  2  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:52:59 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1132 of 2026
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the
habeas corpus petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that there is an
inordinate delay between the arrest of the detenu and passing the
impugned detention order. In this case, the detenu was arrested on
28.05.206, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only
on 29.04.2026, i.e., after a lapse of 32 days. This inordinate delay in
passing the detention order would vitiate the same. He further
submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the date of
arrest and the date of the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the
present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his
counter. He would submit that though there was a delay in passing
the impugned detention order, on that score alone, it cannot be
quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no
prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for
dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
5. Though it has been stated by the respondents that
collection of details has caused the delay in passing the impugned
detention order, a perusal of the grounds of the detention order
passed by the detaining authority shows that the adverse cases are of
__________
Page  3  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:52:59 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1132 of 2026
the same Police Station. The detenu was arrested in the ground case
as early as on 28.05.2026 and the detention order was passed on
29.04.2026. This shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention
order, which is also unexplained. The live and proximate link between
the arrest of the detenu and the need for passing the order of
detention has snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the
impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
6. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of
Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333 , when there was an
inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention
order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and the date of
detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the live
and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of
detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt on the
genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority in
passing the detention order unless such delay is satisfactorily
explained and consequently making it invalid. The relevant portion is
extracted hereunder:-
"20. It is manifestly clear from a
conspectus of the above decisions of this Court,
that the underlying principle is that if there is
unreasonable delay between the date of the
order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu
and in the same manner from the date of the
__________
Page  4  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:52:59 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1132 of 2026
proposal and passing of the order of detention,
such delay unless satisfactorily explained
throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness
of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority in passing the detention
order and consequently render the detention
order bad and invalid because the “live and
proximate link” between the grounds of
detention and the purpose of detention is
snapped in arresting the detenu. A question
whether the delay is unreasonable and stands
unexplained depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case."
7. In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel for
the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby
vitiating and invalidating the detention order.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
8.
C.O.C.No.11/2026 dated 28.05.202
and the order of detention in ,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Govindaraj aged 65 years s/o Singaru , is directed to be released
forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any
other case.
(M.N.K.,J.) (N.G.N.,J.)
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
__________
Page  5  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:52:59 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1132 of 2026
CM
To
1. Rep by
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise dept
Secretariat
Chennai - 9
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
District Collector's Office
Tiruvarur District
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison
Tiruchirappalli
4. The Inspector of Police
O/o.The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Kodavasal
Nannilam
Tiruvarur district
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page  6  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:52:59 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1132 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
AND
N.GUNASEKARAN, J.
CM
HCP(MD) No. 1132 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page  7  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:52:59 pm )