[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Shifana Rosemeen vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 11 March, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
HCP No. 1582 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
HCP No. 1582 of 2025
Shifana Rosemeen
W/o.Mohammed Siddique,
No.4/20, 4th Floor, Owliya Sahib Street,
Kavitha Medicals, Ellis Road,
Triplicane, Anna Salai, Chennai-02
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central prison, Puzhal,
Chennai-66.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Law and Order,
C5, Kothavalchavadi Police Station,
Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or order in the
__________
Page1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 05:53:59 pm )
HCP No. 1582 of 2025
nature of writ call for the records in connection with the order of detention
passed by the second respondent dated 20.06.2025 in Memo
No.388/BCDFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner husband namely Mohammed
Siddique, male aged 35 years, S/o.Sulaiman, who is confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue
before the Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Senthilvel
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted By
Mr. M.Sylvester John
Advocate
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.)
The wife of the detenu has challenged the detention order passed against
the detenu branded as a Drug Offender under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The
detaining authority has found two adverse cases against the detenu. In the
ground case, the detenu was found in possession of 77.88 grams of
methamphetamine and 450 grams of ganja.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to come out on
bail is vitiated for two reasons:
Firstly, the subjective satisfaction was arrived at on the basis of an
undated statement said to have been made by the relative of the detenu and
secondly, the detaining authority had relied upon an order passed in
__________
Page2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 05:53:59 pm )
Crl.M.P.No.13461 of 2024 by the Principal Special Judge for Essential
Commodities & NDPS Act cases, Chennai, and the facts in that case are not
similar.
3. We had heard Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by
Mr.Sylvester John, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. We have perused the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.13461 of 2024 by the
Principal Special Judge for Essential Commodities & NDPS Act cases, where
bail was granted to an accused under the NDPS Act. In that case, bail was
granted because the accused therein did not have any previous case. However,
in this case, the detenu has two previous cases. Therefore, the detaining
authority ought not to have relied upon the order passed in the said petition.
5. Secondly, we find that the statement of the relative is undated. We
have repeatedly held that the undated statement cannot be relied upon to hold
that the detenu is likely to file bail application.
6. Therefore, for both the reasons, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by
the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to come out on bail and indulge
in criminal activities is vitiated. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Memo
No.388/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 20.06.2025 is hereby set aside.
__________
Page3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 05:53:59 pm )
7. The detenu, viz., Mohammed Siddique, S/o.Sulaiman, aged 35 years,
who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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.)
11-03-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Note: Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order today.
sl
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central prison, Puzhal,
Chennai-66.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Law and Order,
C5, Kothavalchavadi Police Station,
Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order),
Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai -9.
__________
Page4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 05:53:59 pm )
DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN J.
sl
11-03-2026
__________
Page5 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 05:53:59 pm )
