(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in proceedings C.No.39/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025 dated 09.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu namely, Naveenkumar, S/o.Ramu, aged about 24 years, now he is confined in Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him at liberty.)

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Naveenkumar, S/o.Palanivel, aged about 24 years. The detenu was detained by the second respondent by order in C.No.39/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2025, dated 09.04.2025, 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. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.03.2025, in the ground case registered in Crime No.233 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Trichy District for the offence under Section 309(6) and 311 of BNS, 2023. Apart from that, the detenu committed another crime in Crime No.854 of 2024 on the file of very same police station for the offence under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 103(2) of BNS, 2023. Therefore, the sponsoring authority sponsor the detenu name to detain under goondas. Considering the documents forwarded by the sponsoring authority the detaining authority detaining the detenu under goondas.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that there was a huge delay of 27 days in detaining the detenu under goondas. The petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2025 and the detaining authority passed order to detain the detenu only on 09.04.2025. Therefore, the live and proximity link between the grounds of goonda and for the purpose of detention has been snapped as petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2025. Further the petitioner was not served with translated version of the accident register of victim in Crime No.233 of 2025. He also raised another ground that the detaining authority to detaining the detenu that apart from the ground case and adverse case the detenu is habitual in committing robbery crime and he has acting in the manner prejudice to the public cause.

5. Even according to the sponsoring authority, the detenu had involved in only two cases in which one was registered for robbery in crime No.233 of 2025. The adverse case was registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 103(2) of BNS, 2023. It is completely non application of mind of the detaining authority to consider the case of the detenu to detain under goondas.

6. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed and also the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor reveals that though the petitioner was detained under goondas after a period of 27 days from arrest i.e., dated 11.03.2025. The detenu filed bail application and the same was dismissed on 08.04.2025. Therefore, only after dismissal of the bail application, the sponsoring authority collected the documents and conveyed to the detaining authority to detain the detenu under goondas. Hence, there was no huge delay on the part of the detaining authority to pass the detention order.

7. Further, in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority relied upon the case in which the detenu involved as robbery, crimes. Therefore, we cannot be taken as the detenu committed several crimes for the offence of robbery. Though there was no inordinate delay to detain the detenu, in view of other circumstances, this ground can be considered.

8. Even according to sponsoring authority the detenu only involved in two cases in which once case was registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 103(2) of BNS, 2023 and ground case was registered for the offence of robbery. Therefore, the detenue cannot be said that he is a habitual offender of robbery. It shows non-application of mind of the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. On this sole ground, the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

9. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.39/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2025 dated 09.04.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu namely, Naveenkumar, S/o.Ramu, male, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.