Lalitha v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Lalitha ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9..

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

3. The Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, Tenkasi District.

4.The Superintendent of Prison,, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in Detention Order MHS Confdl. No.21/2025 dated 07.04.2025 and quash the same and direct the

respondents to produce the detenu Vinoth son of Velayutham, male aged 29 years who is detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sorimuthu For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(Order of the court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz.,Vinoth S/o. Velayutham, aged about 29 years. The detenu has been detained by the 4th respondent by Detention Order in MHS Confdl. No.21/2025 dated 07.04.2025 holding him to be a 'Drug Offender', as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

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 learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the date of arrest was on 15.03.2025 and the date of detention order was on 07.04.2025 and that there was no live and proximity link between the date of arrest and the date on which the detention order was passed.

4. However, a perusal of the records shows that among documents put up for subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, the report of the forensic laboratory was also one of the documents. It was received on 05.04.2025 and within two days from that date, the detention order has been passed. We, therefore, find that there was no undue delay in passing the detention order. No other points had been raised. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed.

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 18.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No RR

To:

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9..

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

3. The Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, Tenkasi District.

4.The Superintendent of Prison,, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN , J.

AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

RR 18.11.2025