A.Preetha Vs Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

Prayer: Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ, order or direction in the nature of a Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the Detention order vide Memo No.543/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 07.08.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner’s husband namely Arunkumar son of Narayanasamy, aged above 28 years, (Who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai) before this Honourable Court may at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Rajadurai For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted By Mr. M. Sylvester John

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

¶25

We have heard Mr.R.Rajadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶26

Mr.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶27

The challenge is to an order of detention dated 07.08.2025, whereunder

¶28

the detenu Arunkumar, male aged 28 years, S/o.Narayanasamy, has been branded as a Drug Offender in terms of Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (in short ‘Act’).

¶29

Page2 of 5

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

HCP No. 2042 of 2025

¶32

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner points out several lacunae and infirmities in the impugned order of detention, what appeals to us is the fact that the comparative case cited by the detaining authority in the grounds

¶33

of detention in support of the impugned order of detention is really not comparable at all.

¶34

The authority has relied on the bail grated in Crl.M.P.No.5272 of 2023 in Cr.No.123 of 2023. However, on a perusal of that order placed in the booklet, we find that bail in that case was granted on account of the accused having been in custody for 63 days as on the date of order. Since the investigation had not yet been completed and no charge sheet had been filed, the accused in that case had been released on bail, which is not the fact in the present case.

¶35

Hence, we do not find that the two cases are comparable and the subjective satisfaction recorded by the authority, based on which the impugned order has been passed stands vitiated and suffers from non-application of mind.

¶36

This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.543/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 07.08.2025 is set aside.

¶37