Palanivel Rajan @ PTR Vinoth vs The State of Tamil Nadu
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Case type
- HCP(MD)
- Decided on
- 10-03-2026
2026:MHC:1040
HCP(MD)No.1319 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.03.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
H.C.P.(MD)No.1319 of 2025
Palanivel Rajan @ Ptr Vinoth ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep By The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept,
Fort St.George,
Chennai -9..
2. The Commissioner of Police,
O/o.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City..
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.. ... Respondents
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 of the Respondent No.2 in No.
43/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 17.09.2025 and quash the same and direct
the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 01:22:54 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1319 of 2025
Palanivel Rajan @ PTR Vinoth, son of Nagendiran, aged about 35 years,
now detained as Goonda at Madurai Central Prison before this court and set
him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner :
M/s.S.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.)
The petitioner is the detenu viz., Palanivelrajan @ PTR Vinoth, aged
about 35 years, S/o.Nagendiran. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in No.43/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 17.09.2025
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.
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 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 01:22:54 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1319 of 2025
3. Apart from the other grounds that was raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the learned counsel mainly focussed on three grounds:
● the first ground is that if the offence has been committed by the
detenu when he is on bail in a previous case, steps must be taken to
cancel the bail and it should not automatically result in passing a
detention order. To substantiate this submission, the learned counsel
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in SLP Crl No.18223 of
2025 in Roshini Devi v State of Telangana dated 08.01.2026 . The
learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
Dhanya.M. v. State of Kerala reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1315 ;
● The second ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the grounds of arrest was not intimated in the arrest
memo and therefore, there is an infraction of Article 22 of the
Constitution of India, which makes the very arrest illegal and
therefore, the impugned detention order will stand vitiated. To
substantiate this submission, the learned counsel relied upon the
judgment in Mihir Raju Shah v State of Maharashtra in Crl.A No.
2195 of 2025 dated 06.11.2025 and in Ashif v. State of Kerala
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 01:22:54 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1319 of 2025
reported in 2025 SCC (1) SC 2650;
● The third ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that even considering the nature of allegations that have
been made against the detenu, it does not have the potential to disturb
the peace and tranquility of the locality and it will not fall within the
realm of public order and at the best, it can only result in a law and
order situation. Therefore, it was contended that there was no
requirement for passing a detention order in this case.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
insofar as the first ground is concerned, this Court had already issued a
direction in HCP (MD) No.1383 of 2024 dated 28.11.2025 and the Director
General of Police will file a status report on the follow up action taken after
the order was passed by this Court. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submitted that the mere non filing of an application for
cancellation of bail by itself cannot result in quashing the detention order.
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 01:22:54 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1319 of 2025
5. Insofar as the second ground raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to our notice
Article 22(3) of the Constitution of India, which specifically provides that
nothing in clauses 1 and 2 to Article 22 will apply in a case of a person
detained under the preventive detention law. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor therefore submitted that if there is an illegal arrest, that has to be
questioned separately and the same cannot be questioned while challenging
the detention order passed.
6. Insofar as the third ground that was raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the detenu was already having a previous case and in the ground case the
nature of incident was such that it will disturb the peace and tranquility of
the locality and it affected the public order and the same had been
specifically stated by the detaining authority in the detention order.
Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought for dismissal
of this petition.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 01:22:54 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1319 of 2025
8. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, we are not inclined to
interfere with the detention order merely on the ground that an application
for cancellation of bail was not filed by the prosecution. However, we are
inclined to follow up with the Director General of Police regarding the
earlier directions that were issued by this Court on 28.11.2025 in HCP(MD)
No.1383 of 2024.
9. Insofar as the second ground that was taken, we are completely in
agreement with the submission made by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor to the effect that what applies to Article 22(1) and 22(2) will not
apply to Article 22(3) and therefore, the issue regarding the non supply of
grounds at the time of arrest, which makes the arrest illegal, cannot be gone
into while dealing with the detention order.
10. We will bestow our attention to the third ground that has been
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On a careful reading of the
detention order, we find that there was one adverse case against the detenu
registered in Crime No.76/2025 for offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1),
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 01:22:54 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1319 of 2025
351(3) of BNS 2023. In that case, already police report has been filed and
the case is pending trial in CC No.1317 of 2025 before the concerned Court.
11. Insofar as the ground case is concerned, the incident is alleged to
have taken place on 24.08.2025 wherein the detenu is said to have waylaid
the victim and attacked him with knife and iron rod and scolded him in
filthy language. It is also stated that the accused persons had threatened the
general public, who were standing nearby. In our considered view, on the
facts of this case, we find that the incident did not have the potential to
disturb the peace and tranquility of the locality or the tempo of the life of
the community of the specified locality. Therefore, at the best, the activities
of the accused person could have caused a law and order problem and
certainly not a public order. Under such circumstances, the detention order
should not have been passed under Act 14 of 1982.
12. We are inclined to make useful reference to the judgment of the
Apex Court in Nenavath Bujji and Others v. State of Telangana and
others reported in 2024 2 MLJ (Crl) 113 , where all the previous judgments
were considered by the Apex Court while discussing the difference between
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 01:22:54 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1319 of 2025
law and order and public order. On this ground, we are inclined to interfere
nd
with the detention order passed by the 2 respondent.
13. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in No.43/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 17.09.2025 passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Palanivel Rajan @ PTR
Vinoth, son of Nagendiran, aged about 35 years, is directed to be released
forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
14. As stated supra, we are inclined to follow up with the earlier
direction issued by this Court in HCP(MD) No.1383 of 2024 dated
28.11.2024. Hence, there shall be a direction to the Director General of
Police to file a status report before this Court. Depending upon the status
report, this Court is inclined to issue further directions to ensure that a
proper process is evolved in dealing with the persons committing offences
by misusing their liberty, by resorting to cancellation of bail rather than
detention orders passed under Act 14 of 1982.
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 01:22:54 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1319 of 2025
15. Post this case under the caption, 'for filing report' on 07.04.2026.
(N.A.V.,J.) (P.D.B.,J.)
10.03.2026
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
RR
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Chennai.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
O/o.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City..
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District..
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 01:22:54 pm )
HCP(MD)No.1319 of 2025
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
AND
P.DHANABAL, J.
RR
H.C.P.(MD)No.1319 of 2025
10.03.2026
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 01:22:54 pm )