Parvathi Vs The State of Tamil nadu rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal, Namakkal District.

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶12

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem District.

¶13

5.The Inspector of Police, Molasi Police Station, Namakkal District. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed in proceedings in C.M.P.No.57/Drug

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

H.C.P.No.2660 of 2025

¶18

Offender/ 2025/M1 dated 29.05.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent and set aside the same and directing the respondents to produce the petitioner’s son by name Srikumar, son of Jayapalan, aged 34 years, before this Court, now confined in Central Prison, Salem and set him at liberty.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Hasnah For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)

¶22

The mother of the detenu has challenged the detention order dated

¶23

29.05.2025 passed against her son, who has been branded as ‘Drug Offender’ under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 has filed this present petition.

¶24

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the inference of the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail without any basis and it is his ipse dixit.

¶25

3.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

¶26

4.We have perused the grounds of detention wherein, the detaining authority has observed that the detenu has not filed bail application and there are fair chances that his relatives are moving the bail application.

¶27

We find that no material was placed before the detaining authority to 2/5

¶28

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

¶29

H.C.P.No.2660 of 2025

¶30

arrive at such a conclusion. The said statement, therefore, is his ipse dixit. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶31

In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition

¶32

is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.57/Drug Offender/2025 (M1), dated 29.05.2025 is set aside.

¶33

The detenu, viz., Srikumar, S/o. Jayapalan, aged 34 years, who

¶34

is now confined in Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶35

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No vs

¶36

Note : Issue Today.

¶37

To

¶38