HCP(MD)No.1109 of 2025 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.1109 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.35/BCDFGISSSV/2025 Page No.1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1109 of 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., Krishnamoorthy@ Mohamed Thowfeek, aged about 35 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. 35/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., Krishnamoorthy@ Mohamed Thowfeek, aged about 35 years, S/o.Sankaran, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1109 of 2025 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 19.03.2025 in Crime No.73 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Town Police Station for the offences under Sections 296(b),109,132,351(3)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. Page No.3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1109 of 2025 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 Page No.4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1109 of 2025 rejecting the representation it has been stated as follows: “ NkYk; jLg;G fhty; Mizf;fhd fhuzj;jpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s Mjhu tof;fpYk; jLg;Gf;fhty; rpiwthrp rk;ge;jg;gl;Ls;shh; vd;gjwf;F jFe;j Mjhuq;fs; cs;sd vd;gJ jLg;Gf;fhty; Mtzq;fspypUe;J njhpa tUfpwJ”. 6. It means that there is a prima facie case made out by the petitioner' son that he involved in those crimes. Therefore, it does not mean that the petitioner's son also involved in other cases. That apart, even in the order of detention and also in the grounds for detention the detaining authority did not even whisper about the other cases in which the petitioner's son involved previously. Only in the ground case the petitioner' son was detained under Act 14 of 1982, therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent. 7. In the result, the Habeus Corpus Petition stands dismissed. [G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 01.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Page No.5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1109 of 2025 aav To: 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 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Page No.6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1109 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J. aav HCP(MD)No.1109 of 2025 DATED : 01.12.2025 Page No.7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis