Madras High Court
Kajol vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 22 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1244 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-09-2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1244 of 2025
Kajol
W/o Saran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai City,
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
PEW St. Thomas Mount Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call
for the records connected with the detention order passed by 2nd
respondent in Memo No.BCDFGISSSV No.255/2025 dated 13.05.2025
and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and
person of petitioner's husband namely Saran, S/o.Mukundan, aged 31
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:22 pm )
H.C.P.No.1244 of 2025
years, detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and
set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.S.Manikandan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu,J.
and
S.Sounthar,J
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, viz., Saran, Son of
Mukundhan, aged about 31 years, who is confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV
No.255/2025 dated 13.05.2025, branding him as "Drug Offender" under
the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Cyber Law Offenders, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum
Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982] read
with the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.97 Home
Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:22 pm )
section 3(2) of the aforesaid Act.
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. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner
was arrested on 12.04.2025 and the detention order was passed only on
13.05.2025. Hence, there is a delay in passing the order of detention.
Therefore, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also states that the
petitioner was arrested on 12.04.2025 and the order of detention was
passed only on 13.05.2025 and there is a delay of one day in passing the
detention order.
5. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. As
seen from the grounds of detention, it is clear that though the detenu was
arrested on 12.04.2025, the order of detention came to be passed only on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:22 pm )
13.05.2025. There is no satisfactory explanation offered by the Detaining
Authority for the delay in passing the order of detention. Hence, the
impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
6. Further, the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered
by the ratio laid down by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura', reported in
'2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813. The relevant portion of the said judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:-
“20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the
above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is
that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the
order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the
same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the
order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained
throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the
requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in
passing the detention order and consequently render the
detention order bad and invalid because the “live and
proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the
purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A
question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands
unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:22 pm )
case.”
Therefore, following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set
aside.
7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
detention order passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV
No.255/2025 dated 13.05.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Saran, Son of Mukundhan, aged about 31 years, who is now confined in
the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is hereby directed to be set at liberty
forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other
case.
(J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)
22.09.2025
vsi
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai City,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:22 pm )
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
PEW St. Thomas Mount Police Station,
Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:22 pm )
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
vsi
22-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/09/2025 03:33:22 pm )
