High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 09 MAD CK 1482

P.Thangam vs The State Of Tamilnadu & Ors.

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench · Decided on 1 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J · B.Murugesan, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
H.C.P.(MD) No.1088 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 314 words

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Nainarvignesh, son of Paramasivan, aged about 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.35 of 2026, dated 06.03.2026, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contraband seized from the detenu is only 2.200 Kgs, which is an intermediate quantity. In a similar situation, the Division Bench of this Court holding that the detaining authority in a casual manner, has passed the detention order in a case where such an order is not warranted, had quashed the detention order in H.C.P.(MD) No.454 of 2026, dated 19.06.2026.

3.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

4.

We are of the view that in the ground case, the quantity that is alleged to have been seized is only an intermediate quantity. Hence, it is not a serious offence under the NDPS Act, since it does not involve any commercial quantity, warranting passing of a detention order and the detenu could have been dealt with under regular penal law that is already available and there was no need for resorting to detention order under Act 14 of 1982.

5.

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.35 of 2026, dated 06.03.2026, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Nainarvignesh, son of Paramasivan, aged about 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.