BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1090 of 2025 M.Sankaran ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

2. The Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli City Tirunelveli.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli

4. The Inspector of Police Tirunelveli Town Police Station(Crime)

Tirunelveli Town ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in No.33/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 16.04.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Karthik alias Alisheik, aged about 32 years, S/o.Sankaran, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.N. Pragalathan For Respondents: Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. This Habeus Corpus Petition has been filed to quash the detention order passed by the second respondent in No. 33/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 16.04.2025 and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Karthik alias Alisheik, aged about 32 years, S/o.Sankaran, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. The petitioner's son was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.03.2025 in Crime No.68 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Town Police Station for the offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b),103(1), 351(3) and 49 of BNS and thereafter the petitioner'

son was detained under Act 14 of 1982.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the detention order was passed on 16.04.2025, whereas the documents which were relied on by the detaining authority was dated 17.04.2025. Further on receipt of representation the detaining authority rejected the representation of the petitioner stating that the petitioner' son already involved in other cases. However, only on the basis of solitary case he has been detained under Act 14 of 1982.

5. On a perusal of the records and also on a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent and considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner it is seen that the copies were furnished to the detenue by the Investigating Officer and in fact the copies served to the Court were also attested by the Investigating Officer which were furnished to the detenue. In one of the page of the document which was furnished to the detenu while attesting the copies as true copy, the investigating officer stated the date as 17.04.2025. It does not mean that those documents were submitted before the detaining authority on 17.04.2025 to pass detention order. Admittedly all the documents which were relied upon by the detaining authority were all dated before passing the detention order. While serving copies to the detenue the investigating officer had attested the document as true copy mentioning the date as 17.04.2025 and it does not mean that the documents which were furnished to the detaining authority only on 17.04.2025. Further the petitioner submitted representation to consider the order of detention which was considered and rejected by an order dated 10.09.2025 by the Government. While rejecting the representation it has been stated as follows:

“ NkY