2024:MHC:1215 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.02.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN H.C.P.(MD) No.1265 of 2023 Latha ... Petitioner/mother of the detenu -vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

3.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Exercise Wing, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order in H.S(M).Confdl.No.121 of 2023, dated 16.09.2023 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu Vijayakumar, son of Sekar, Male, aged 36 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mariappan For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi, Addl.Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

AND C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

The mother of the detenu challenging the detention order passed under Act 14 of 1982, is before this Court in H.C.P(MD)No.

1265 of 2023.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3.According to the respondents, Eicher Pro 1110 Container vehicle from Andhra Pradesh was intercepted on 22.08.2023, based on the specific information, near Rajaputhukudi at Madurai-Tirunelveli National Highways. On search, 600 Kgs of Ganja was recovered from the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 04 AR2585. As a result of which, the occupants in the vehicle were arrested for possessing commercial quantity of Narcotic drugs.Therefore, they were remanded to judicial custody. Among the accused, the son of the Petitioner, Vijayakumar is one among them. Based on the recommendation of the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention Order on 16.09.2023.

4.The said detention order is challenged on the ground that likelihood of granting bail,is remote for the commercial quanitity of Ganja. However, disimilar case was cited as similar case,which shows the non-application of mind in passing the detention order. It is also submitted that the Remand Extension Order was not furnished to the Petitioner, which prejudiced and has prevented the Petitioner from making proper and effective representation. However, from the perusal of book-let, it is seen that the Remand Extension Order was furnished to the detenu.

5.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent,wherein, the reasoning for the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and regarding likelihood of getting bail in a similar case qua for commercial quantity has been stated.

6.The learned counsel for the Petitioner circulated an order of this Court made in H.C.P(MD)No.967 of 2023, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the plea of live and proximity link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention and also the application of mind regarding the grant of bail. The learned counsel for the Petitioner bring parralel on facts that the case cited also involves solitary case, as in the case under consideration and prayed for interference of the detention order.

7.However, on close scrutiny of the above judgment, this Court finds that, on facts, the detention order is based on a solitary case and the reasons for detention are valid and sustainable. No doubt, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court thought it fit that by filing of Final report by the respondents-Police, there may not be any apprehension of granting bail in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity and if any bail petition is filed, the trial Court shall c