CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Manjula vs State And Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 5 June 2026 · Citation: (2026) 06 MAD CK 0232

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) · Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 180(3)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 2496 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 · 345 words

Sunder Mohan, J

1.

The mother of detenu - Surya @ Gajini Surya, S/o. Rajkumar aged 23 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 25.09.2025, branding him as 'Drug Offender' under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

2.

We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents.

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.

The detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been made by the mother of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that she is taking steps to file a bail application in the ground case. However, we find that the statement of the mother of the detenu is unsigned. We have in HCP No. 1684 of 2025 vide order dated 01.04.2026, held that, the unsigned statement cannot be relied upon to infer that the detenu is likely to file bail application.

5.

Therefore, the reliance placed on the said statement by the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is misconceived. Thus, the inference that the detention is warranted since the detenu is likely to indulge in further criminal activities after his release on bail is based on the said wrong premise. 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 No.733/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.09.2025 is set aside.

7.

The detenu, viz., Surya @ Gajini Surya, S/o.Rajkumar, aged about 23 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.