[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Rathika vs The Additional Chief Secretary To The ... on 29 April, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
HCP No. 2109 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
HCP No. 2109 of 2025
Rathika
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
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,
Chengalpet District,
Chengalpet.
3. The Superintendent of Police
Chengalpet District.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison
Puzhal.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Maduranthagam Police Station,
Chengalpet District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for
issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in
CPT No.15/2025 dated 16.09.2025 in detain the detenu under 2(e) of Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Drug Offender and quash the same and direct the
respondent to produce the detenu Siva @ Sivanesan, S/o. Srinivasan aged about
32 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him
at liberty.
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP No. 2109 of 2025
For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan
For Respondent(s): Mr. R.Muniyapparaj,
Additional Public Prosecutor,
Assisted By
Mr. M.Sylvester John
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.)
The wife of the detenu – Siva @ Sivanesan, S/o. Srinivasan aged
32 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated
16.09.2025, branding him as ‘Drug Offender’ under Section 2(e) of the Tamil
Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds have been raised, we are of the view that the
detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the satisfaction of the
detaining authority as regards the real possibility of the detenu coming out on
bail suffers from non-application of mind.
4. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the
detenu had not filed any bail application and that his wife (the petitioner herein)
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has given a statement u/s 180(3) of BNSS, 2023 on 05.09.2025, that due to
family circumstances, she is not in a position to file a bail petition on behalf of
her husband and that in due course of time, she will try to file a bail petition
before the appropriate Court.
5. Firstly, we find from the said statement, which is furnished at page
no.109 of the booklet, that the petitioner had not stated about her family
circumstances. Secondly, the petitioner had not made any reference to the
ground case and her intention to take the detenu out on bail in the said case.
Thirdly, the said statement is neither dated nor signed. We have in HCP No.
1684 of 2025, dated 01.04.2026, held that, the unsigned statement cannot be
relied upon to infer that the detenu is likely to file bail application.
6.For the above three reasons, the statement is of no value and ought not
to have been the basis for the detaining authority to conclude that the detenu is
likely to file a bail application and that there is a real possibility of the detenu
coming out on bail.
7.Consequently, the inference that the detention is warranted since the
detenu is likely to indulge in further criminal activities after his release on bail
also is without basis. Hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.In light of the above discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order
CPT No.15/2025, dated 16.09.2025 is set aside.
9.The detenu, viz., Siva @ Sivanesan, S/o. Srinivasan aged
32 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is 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.)
29-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
TSG
Note: Issue order today.
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,
Chengalpet District,
Chengalpet.
3. The Superintendent of Police
Chengalpet District.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison
Puzhal.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The Inspector of Police,
Maduranthagam Police Station,
Chengalpet District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
7. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order),
Secretariat, Fort.St. George, Chennai – 9.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
TSG
29-04-2026
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
