Jeevitha v. The State of Tamilnadu Represented by

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The wife of the detenu – Arunkumar S/o.Selvam, aged 26 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 06.10.2025, branding him as a 'Drug Offender' under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

¶2We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for respondents.

¶3It is seen from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has relied upon an order passed by this Court in Page3 of 6 Crl.O.P.No.30267 of 2022 to arrive at a conclusion that in similar cases bail has been granted by the Courts and therefore, the detenu is likely to be released on bail by filing the bail application.

¶4It is seen from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has referred to the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.30267 of 2022 as an order passed in anticipatory bail application, which is actually a bail order. This reflects the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as regards the documents placed before the detaining authority.

5.Be that as it may, the order that is sought to be relied upon as a similar case for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is likely to be released on bail, is not comparable. The offence alleged against the detenu is under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(b), 29(1) & 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 and 123 & 278 of BNS, 2023 r/w 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, whereas, in the order in Crl.O.P.No.30267 of 2022, the offence alleged against the accused therein is under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(b), 22(c), 25 Page4 of 6 & 29(1) of NDPS Act. The detenue herein has been charged with graver offences. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said order by the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is misconceived. The inference that the detenu would indulge in further criminal activities after his release also is without any basis. Hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶6In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order No.38/2025 dated 06.10.2025 is set aside.

¶7The detenu, viz., Arunkumar S/o.Selvam, aged 26 years, who is now confined in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 23-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order TSG Note: Issue order copy today. Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶2The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.

¶4The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.

¶5The Inspector of Police, R.K.Pet - PEW Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

¶6The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai

¶7The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. HCPoNo.o2285oofo2025 DR.ANITAoSUMANTH,oJ. AND SUNDERoMOHAN,oJ. TSG HCPoNo.o2285oofo2025 23-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Jeevitha ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu represented by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai - 66. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District. 5. The Inspector of Police, R.K.Pet - PEW Police Station, Tiruvallur District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Page2 of 6 Detention order No. 38/2025 dt. 06.10.2025 and quash the same, consequently, directing the respondents to produce the detenu namely the petitioner's husband namely Arunkumar, aged about 26 years detained in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai before the Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr. M. Mohamed Saifulla for Mr.C.Jayakumar For Respondent(s): MR. C.R. Malarvannan, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)