A.Selvarani v. The State of Tamilnadu

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Ajith Kumar, son of Veeranan, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.1 of 2026 dated

21.01.2026, 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.

¶2We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶3Though 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 is no adverse case against the detenu. The ground case involved 6 kgs of ganja, which is also an intermediate quantity for which, FIR was registered in Crime No.620 of 2025.

¶4It was contended that in the ground case, 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.

¶5We are of the view that 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.

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

¶7The another ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu was arrested on 23.12.2025, whereas, the detention order was passed only on 21.01.2026. Hence, there is a delay of 29 days in passing the detention order and this delay is totally unexplained.

¶8In 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.

¶9The 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.

¶10In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.1 of 2026 dated 21.01.2026 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., namely, Ajith Kumar, son of Veeranan, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

(N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,)

24.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG To

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collectorate and District Magistrate, Office of Collectorate, Madurai.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

N. ANAND VENKATESH,J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

TSG

H.C.P.(MD)No.419 of 2026

24.06.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.06.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN H.C.P.(MD)No.419 of 2026 A.Selvarani .. Petitioner / Wife of the detenu Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collectorate and District Magistrate, Office of Collectorate, Madurai. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. .. Respondents 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 order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.1 of 2026 dated 21.01.2026 and quash the same and set the petitioner's husband by name, Ajith Kumar, son of Veeranan, aged about 28 years at liberty from the third respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prithviraj For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)