IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

H.C.P.No. 1286 of 2025

Raja ... Petitioner/

S/o.Subiramani Father of the detenu

Versus

1. The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Dept.,

Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

2. District Collector and District Magistrate of

Ranipet District, Ranipet – 1.

3. The Superintendent of Police,

Ranipet District, Ranipet.

4. The Superintendent of Prison,

Central Prison, Vellore.

5. The Inspector of Police,

Nemili Police Station,

Ranipet District. .. Respondents

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 24.06.2025 in B3/D.O.No.52/2025 against the petitioner’s son Logeshwaran, male aged 19 years S/o.Raja, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.R.Munniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN J.)

The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, Logeshwaran, S/o.Raja, aged 19 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.06.2025 bearing reference in B3/D.O.No.52/2025, slapped on his son Logeshwaran, S/o.Raja, male, aged 19 years, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, branding him as "Goonda" under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. In support of the affidavit, very many grounds have been raised but in the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his arguments on two grounds viz., (i) there is live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as the detenu was remanded to judicial custody on 23.05.2025 but the impugned detention order was passed on 24.06.2025; and (ii) the impugned preventive detention order had been passed on 24.06.2026 but the entire booklet was supplied on the detenu only on 30.06.2025, which violates Section 8(1) of Act 14 of

1982, which reads as follows:

'8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order.- (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government. '

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to justify the delay by stating that though impugned detention order was passed on 24.06.2025, a copy thereof was furnished to the detenu on 25.06.2025 itself. He further submitted that time was consumed in collecting and collating the materials in this exercise. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable.

5. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333] which arose under 'Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988' [hereinafter referred to as 'PIT NDPS Act' ] in Tirupura, after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and a