AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 283 wordsSunder Mohan, J
The wife of the detenu has challenged the detention order dated 29.08.2025 branding him as a 'drug offender'.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
We find that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the special report of the sponsoring authority is undated. We have held repeatedly that an undated special report cannot be the basis for passing the order of detention.
We also find that the detenu had not moved any bail application and the detaining authority had relied upon an order passed in Crl.M.P.No.9007 of 2023 dated 28.11.2023 passed by the learned Principal Special Court for NDPS Cases to infer that the detenu is likely to be released on bail.
We have perused the said order, we find that in that case bail was granted because the police had not filed the final report within the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. That apart, according to the respondent, the detenu has 37 previous cases. Hence, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail suffers from non-application of mind and hence, the detention order is liable to set aside.
In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.BBCDEFGISSSV No.108/2025 dated 29.08.2025, is set aside.
The detenu, viz., J.Natarajan, S/o. Jeeva, aged 28 years, who is 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.