Allowed¶32

Gokulnath v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC12 Mar 2026HCP(MD)/102/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gokulnath v. State of Tamil Nadu, H.C.P.(MD)No.102 of 2026, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 12.03.2026 (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.; P. Dhanabal, J.). Habeas corpus against preventive detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 ('Drug Offender', S.2(e)); ground: both adverse FIR Crime No.180 of 2025 (100 gms ganja) and ground FIR Crime No.266 of 2025 (12 kgs ganja) involved only intermediate, not commercial, quantity under NDPS Act; detention held unwarranted, regular penal law sufficient; Rekha (2011 (5) SCC 244) relied on; detention order set aside, release directed.

What did the court decide?

Habeas Corpus Petition allowed; Detention Order C.O.C.No.26 of 2025 (TPDA No.380) dated 08.10.2025 set aside; detenu Gokulnath directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. ¶32

Gokulnath Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 12.03.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶7

H.C.P.(MD)No.102 of 2026

¶8

Gokulnath

¶9

.. Petitioner / detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Collectorate, Tiruvarur District.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy-620 020. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the second respondent passed vide Detention Order

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

C.O.C.No.26 of 2025 (TPDA No.380) dated 08.10.2025 and quash the same as illegal and void and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of detenu, Gokulnath, S.o Thamizharasan, aged 20 years, who has been termed as Drug Offender and confined in Central Prison, Trichy before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)

¶21

The petitioner is the detenu, by name Gokulnath, S.o Thamizharasan, aged 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order C.O.C.No.26 of 2025 (TPDA No.380) dated 08.10.2025 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶22

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.

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there was one adverse case involving an intermediate quantity of 100 gms of ganja, for which, FIR was registered in Crime No.180 of 2025. The ground case involved 12 kgs of ganja, which is also an intermediate quantify for which, FIR was registered in Crime No. 266 of 2025. The detenu was arrested on 11.09.2025, whereas, the detention order was passed only on 08.10.2025.

¶26

It was contended that in both cases, intermediate quantity was involved, whereas the Detaining Authority in a casual manner has passed the detention order in a case where such an order is not warranted.

¶27

We are of the view that both in the adverse case as well as in the ground case, the quantity that is alleged to have been seized is only an intermediate quantity. Hence, it is not a serious offence under the NDPS Act, since it does not involve any commercial quantity, warranting passing of a detention order and the detenu could have been dealt with under regular penal law that is already available and there was no need for resorting to detention order under Act 14 of 1982.

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

For this purpose, we rely on the judgment in Rekha vs. State of

¶31

Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244) .

¶32

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order C.O.C.No.26 of 2025 (TPDA No.380) dated 08.10.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Gokulnath, S.o Thamizharasan, aged 20 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶33

(N.A.V.,J..) (P.D.B.,J.,) 12.03.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TSG To

¶34