HCP No. 379 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR HCP No. 379 of 2026 Manisha W/o.Murugesan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Principal Secretary to Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai - 600009. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Erode District Erode 3. The Superintendent of Police Erode District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Coimbatore. 5. The Inspector Of Police Erode South Police Station, Erode District. ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ or Direction calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in Cr.M.P.No.09/Drug Offender/2026 C1 dated 04.02.2026 and quash the same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 379 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's husband namely Murugesan, son of Palanisamy, aged about 33 years detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Mohamed Ansar For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Murugesan, son of Palanisamy, male, aged about 33 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 04.02.2026 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.09/Drug Offender/2026 C1 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand 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 Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 379 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 unexplained delay in serving the booklet. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the detention order was passed on 04.02.2026, the booklet was served on the detenu only on 09.02.2026, which is in violation of mandatory provision under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 4. In the instant case, though the detenu was detained on 04.02.2026 through the detention order, the booklet was served only on 09.02.2026. Under Section 8 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Detaining Authority is mandated to communicate the grounds of detention or booklet within a period of five (5) days. The computation of the period of five days was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vasanthi vs. The Secretary to Government and others, passed in H.C.P.Nos.1407 and 1410 of 2023, dated 29.08.2023, wherein reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Enforcement Directorate, Government of India vs. Kapil Wadhawan and another', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine SC 972', and held as follows: “9.3 ............................ ...............It was a reference before the Hon'ble Larger Bench, however, as that is also a matter of curtailment of liberty (as in the case on hand), we draw inspiration from Kapil Wadhawan principle and hold that while computing five days within the meaning of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, the date on which the preventive detention order is served on the detenu i.e., formal arrest pursuant to the preventive detention order should also be included.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 379 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 5. Thus, when the order of detention is taken into consideration for the purpose of computing five days period, the Detaining Authority has served it on the sixth day, which is opposite to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vasanthi's case. The reasons for the said delay has not been properly explained by the Detaining Authority. 6. In view of the violation of the mandatory provision under Section 8 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the order of detention cannot be legally sustained. 7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 04.02.2026 in Cr.M.P.No.09/Drug Offender/2026/C1 is hereby set aside. The detenue viz.,Murugesan, son of Palanisamy, male, aged about 33 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 19-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gpa https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 379 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai - 600009. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Erode District. 3. The Superintendent of Police Erode District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Coimbatore. 5. The Inspector Of Police Erode South Police Station, Erode District. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9 7. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 379 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. gpa HCP No. 379 of 2026 19-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis