JUDGMENT :

B. Pugalendhi, J.

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned detention order passed in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.35/2020 dated 15.12.2020 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu, namely, Raguvaran @ Anbu, aged about 32 years, S/o.Machakalai, now confined at Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and thereafter, set him at liberty.

The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the detention order dated 15.12.2020, in and by which, the petitioner's son, Raguvaran @ Anbu, was detained as a Drug Offender under Act 14 of 1982.

2. The detenu came to the adverse notice in the case in Sindhupatti Police Station Crime No.933 of 2020, registered for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(C), 25 & 29(i) of NDPS Act. The said case was registered as against the detenu and one Sasikumar, who were found in possession of 30 kgs of Ganja, each, in total 60 kgs of Ganja. The detenu was arrested on 25.09.2020 and was remanded to judicial custody. He has filed a bail petition before the Special District and Sessions (EC & NDPS Act cases) Court, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.1060 of 2020, which is said to be pending. By placing reliance upon a similar case in Elumalai Police Station Crime No.112 of 2018, wherein, bail was granted by the concerned Court to the accused therein, the detaining authority has derived the subjective satisfaction that there is a real and imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and to indulge in similar activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health, has clamped the order of detention by branding him as a drug offender.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated and there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

4. Tamil Nadu is the State, where large number of detentions are invoked every year. The object of detention and the detention laws, is not to punish, but, to prevent the commission of offences. If the detaining authority is satisfied that with a view to prevent such person from indulging in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, in future, then an order of detention can be passed. It is for the detaining authority to consider, on the basis of antecedents and arrive at a conclusion, whether the detenu, had come to adverse notice, whether he would continue to indulge in prejudicial activities, if he remains at large. It is also obligatory on the part of the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction based on the materials placed before him, as to whether recourse to normal criminal law did not have the desired effect of preventing him from indulging in such activities (emphasis supplied), which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future.

5. As stated supra, the detaining authority, in this case, by referring to a similar case registered in Elumalai Police Station Crime No.112 of 2018, under the NDPS Act, wherein bail was granted to the accused therein by the concerned Court, inferred that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and therefore, has detained him by invoking Act 14 of 1982.

6. The detenu and the another accused were arrested on 25.09.2020, in connection with the case in Crime No.933 of 2020, wherein, they were found to be in possession of 60 kgs of Ganja. As per the notification of the Central Government in SO.No.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001, commercial quantity o