logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 4537 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : H.C.P. (MD) No. 245 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
Parties : S. Jaisankar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition & Excise (XIV) Department, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: R. Senthilkumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: G. Karuppasamy Pandiyan, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side).
Date of Judgment : 15-06-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, vide Cr.M.P.No.121/D.O/2025 dated 23.12.2025 and set aside the same as illegal and setting the detenue namely Ajith @ Ajithukumar, aged about 25 years at liberty, now detained in Central Prison, Madurai.)

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu, by name, Ajith @ Ajithukumar, S/o.Jeisankar, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.121/D.O/2025 dated 23.12.2025, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there was one adverse case involving an intermediate quantity of 4 kgs, for which, FIR was registered in Crime No.446 of 2025. The ground case involved 2.2 kgs of ganja, which is also an intermediate quantify for which, FIR was registered in Crime No.179 of 2025.

4. It was contended that in both cases, intermediate quantity was involved, whereas the Detaining Authority in a casual manner has passed the detention order in a case where such an order is not warranted.

5. We are of the view that both in the adverse case as well as in the ground case, the quantity that is alleged to have been seized is only an intermediate quantity. Hence, it is not a serious offence under the NDPS Act, since it does not involve any commercial quantity, warranting passing of a detention order and the detenu could have been dealt with under regular penal law that is already available and there was no need for resorting to detention order under Act 14 of 1982.

6. For this purpose, we rely on the judgment in Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244).

7. The another ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu was arrested on 30.11.2025, whereas, the detention order was passed only on 23.12.2025. Hence, there is a delay of 24 days in passing the detention order and this delay is totally unexplained.

8. In our considered view, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1333.

9. The detention order is vitiated due to the fact that there was a solitary case and the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of the detention is completely absent.

10. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.121/D.O/2025 dated 23.12.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ajith @ Ajithukumar, S/o.Jeisankar, aged about 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case.
 
  CDJLawJournal