CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Manju vs Principal Secretary And Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 22 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 MAD CK 1428

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Anita Sumanth, J · Sunder Mohan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Tamil Nadu Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders And Slum- Grabbers, Act, 1982 — Section 2(e) · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 167(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 2189 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

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 · 357 words

Sunder Mohan, J

1.

The wife of the detenu-G.Kamalesh, S/o.Ganesan, aged 26 years, has challenged his detention order dated 23.09.2025 branding him as 'Drug Offender' under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982).

2.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3.

Though several grounds have been raised, we are of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind.

4.

In paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had observed that the detenue had not filed any bail application; that the sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bring him out on bail; and that in a similar case in CMP No.2394 of 2023 by the order dated 18.06.2023, the Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai had granted bail to the accused therein.

5.

However, on perusal of the said order in CMP No.2394 of 2023, which is furnished in the booklet, we find that the bail was granted under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. as the police in that case had not filed the final report within the time stipulated and not on merits. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said order by the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is misconceived. The inference that the detenu would indulge in further criminal activities after his release also is without any basis. Hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

6.

In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No. 120/2025 dated 23.09.2025 is set aside.

7.

The detenu, viz., G.Kamalesh, S/o.Ganesan, aged 26 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.