Viji vs State of Tamil Nadu And Others

Dr. Anita Sumanth, J

The challenge is to detention order dated 28.08.2025 relating to one Ravi (convict), S/o. Ramasamy, who has been labelled as Drug Offender under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (in short‘Act’).The present petition is filed by his wife.

Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, who appears for Mr.P.Divakar, for the petitioner points out that the detention order is sought to be justified on the ground that bail had been and granted on 02.12.2024 sought in Crl.M.P.No. 13481 of 2024. However, according to petitioner, the facts involved in that case are different and distinct from the present case.

Per contra, Mr.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, who appears for the respondents would submit that the subjective satisfaction of the authority is perfectly in order since the detenu had moved the bail application even prior to the passing of the detention order. He submits that there is every possibility of moving bail even now.

Having considered the rival contentions, we are of the view that the petitioner must succeed. The detenu has been under incarceration since 01.8.2025. The bail application, post his arrest in the ground case has, admittedly been dismissed. He has not moved any bail application either by himself or through his relatives till date.

The list of cases that are put against him (30 in number) are mostly stale and two cases of the year 2011 & 2016 are undergoing trial now. We are mystified as to why offences related to 2011 and 2016 are still pending at the stage of trial, as they ought to have been completed in a time bound manner. Be that as it may, they will not stand to the detriment of the detenu now.

Moreover, we find that, as far as Crl MP No. 13461 of 2024 is concerned, that offender had not been found in possession of contraband and it was for that reason that he had been granted bail. The facts are thus distinguishable and in light of the aforesaid, we see no justification to sustain the impugned detention order and set aside the same.

In light of the above discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.621/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 28.08.2025 is hereby set aside.

The detenu, viz., Ravi, S/o. Ramasamy, aged 56 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.