HCP(MD)No.641 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.07.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.641 of 2025 Ayyammal ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai, Madurai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station, Vedasandur, Dindigul District. ... Respondents 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 Detention order No. 95/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent on 10.10.2024 and Page No.1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.641 of 2025 quash the same direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu namely Mukeswaran, Son of Narayanasamy, aged about 23 years, now detained at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr. K. Periyasamy For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the mother of detenu viz., Mukeswaran, Son of Narayanasamy, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention order No. 95/2024, dated 10.10.2024 holding him to be a "Drug offender", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of 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 appearing for the petitioner submits that in the Page No.2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.641 of 2025 grounds of detention in the English version, it has been stated that at the time of extension of remand the accused was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchatram, whereas in the Tamil version it has been stated as the accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, and the detaining authority without properly looking into the same and without seeking for clarification has mechanically passed order and thereby, it exposes non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and thereby, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order with proper application of mind and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. 5. On perusal of the impugned detention order, it is seen that the contents in English version and Tamil version vary. The relevant portion of the detention order reads as follows: In English version: “Accused Mukeswaran was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur on 16.09.2024 and sent to judicial Page No.3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.641 of 2025 custody up to 30.09.2024. Again he was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchatram on 30.09.2024. Now, accused Mukeswaran is lodged at District Jail, Dindigul. The case is under investigation.” In Tamil version: “vjphp KNf\;tud; vd;gth; Ntlre;J}h; ePjpj;Jiw eLth; ePjpkd;wk; Kd;ghf 16.09.2024 md;W M[h;gLj;jg;gl;L> 30.09.2024 tiu ePjpkd;wf; fhtYf;F mDg;gg;gl;Ls;shh;. gpd;dh; kPz;Lk; Ntlre;J}h; ePjpj;Jiw eLth; ePjpkd;wk; Kd;ghf 30.09.2024 md;W M[h;gLj;jg;gl;L mth; kPjhd fhtyhdJ ,Wjpahf 14.10.2024 tiu ePl;bj;J cj;jutplg;gl;Ls;sJ. vjphp KNf\;tud; vd;gth; jw;NghJ jpz;Lf;fy; khtl;l rpiwapy; milg;Gf; fhtypy; cs;shh;. ,t;tof;fhdJ tprhuizapy; cs;sJ.” In the English version it is stated that the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchathiram on 30.09.2024, whereas in the Tamil version, it is stated that the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Vedasanthur on 30.09.2024. No clarification in this regard, which reflects that the detention order has been passed without application of mind and thereby, it is vitiated and liable to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind. 6. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order. Page No.4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.641 of 2025 7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed in Detention order No. 95/2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Mukeswaran, Son of Narayanasamy, aged about 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 28.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No trp To: 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai, Madurai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station, Vedasandur, Dindigul District. 5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madars High Court, Madurai. Page No.5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.641 of 2025 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J. trp ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.641 of 2025 DATED : 28.07.2025 Page No.6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis