Madras High Court
Sarika vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 September, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P(MD)No.1108 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.1108 of 2025
Sarika ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichy District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected
with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in Cr.M.P. No. 40/2025
dated 17.06.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 02:09:23 pm )
H.C.P(MD)No.1108 of 2025
produce the body or person of the detenu by name Saravanan, son of
Namachivayam, aged about 35 years, now detained as “Drug Offender”
at inTrichy Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : .Dr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Saravanan,
S/o.Namachivayam, aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained
by the second respondent by Detention Order in Cr.M.P.No.40/2025,
dated 17.06.2025 holding him to be a 'Drug Offender', as contemplated
under Section 2(e) of 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 02:09:23 pm )
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground
that there is an unexplained delay in serving the booklet to the detenu.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the detention
order was passed on 17.06.2025, the booklet was served on the detenu
only on 23.06.2025. Hence, the same was not served within five days as
per the provisions under Section 8(1) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in J.Anitha vs. 1.The
Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others in H.C.P.
(MD)No.1334 of 2023, dated 11.12.2023.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted
that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring
Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention
order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is
also stated that even if there is any delay in serving booklet to the detenu,
it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence,
prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 02:09:23 pm )
5. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
and on perusal of the records, we find that the detention order has been
passed on 17.06.2025. However, booklet was served on the detenu only
on 23.06.2025 i.e., beyond five days, which is clearly in violation of
Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982. Even the above cited decision of a
Division Bench of this Court deals with the same point and is applicable
to the present case. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated
further detention of the detenu and hence, we have no hesitation in
quashing the impugned detention order.
6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
Detention Order in Cr.M.P.No.40/2025, dated 17.06.2025, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Saravanan,
S/o.Namachivayam, aged about 35 years, is directed to be released
forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other
case.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.)
26.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 02:09:23 pm )
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichy District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 02:09:23 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
vsm
ORDER MADE IN
26.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 02:09:23 pm )
