Senthilkumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Senthilkumar vs The State of Tamilnadu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 15, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1621175

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1621175
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh,Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
Decided On: Jun 15, 2026
Case Number: HCP(MD)/523/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Senthilkumar

Respondent

The State of Tamilnadu

Excerpt

.....who is confined in the fourth respondent's central prsion, madurai before this court and set him at liberty forthwith. for petitioner : mr.j.pooventherarajan for respondents : mr.g.karuppasamy pandiyan counsel for state of tn (crl.side)order(order of the court was made by n. anand venkatesh,j.) the petitioner is the father of the detenu, by name palpandi, aged about 26 years, s/o.senthilkumar. the detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in detention order no.116/2025, dated 15.12.2025 holding him to be a "drug offender", as contemplated under section 2(e) of the tamil nadu prevention detention act, 1982 (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. though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpuspetition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there was one adverse case involving an intermediate quantity of 2 kgs, for which, fir was registered in crime no.438 of 2025. the ground case involved 5 kgs of ganja, which is also an intermediate quantity for which, fir was registered in crime no.592 of2025. the detenu was arrested on 24.11.2025, whereas, the detention orderwas passed only on 15.12.2025.4. it was contended that in both cases, intermediate quantity was involved, whereas the detaining authority in a casual manner has passed the detention order in a case where such an order is not warranted.5. we are of the view that both in the adverse case as well as in theground 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.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.06.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN H.C.P.(MD)No.523 of 2026 Senthilkumar .. Petitioner / Father of the detenu Vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3.The Chairman, Advisory Board, Zonal Office, Madurai Corporation, Anaiyur, Koodal Post, Near Bus Stand, Madurai. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai District. .. Respondents
Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records relating to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Detention

Order No.116/2025, dated 15.12.2025 branding the petitioner's son/detenue

namely Palpandi, aged about 26 years, S/o.Senthilkumar, as Drug Offender, under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with order issued by the Government in G.O.(D) No.292, Home, Prohibition and Excise

(XVI) Department, dated 14.10.2025 under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of

the said Act and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenue, who is confined in the fourth respondent's Central Prsion, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pooventherarajan For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu, by name Palpandi, aged about 26 years, S/o.Senthilkumar. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.116/2025, dated 15.12.2025 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention Detention Act, 1982 (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. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus

Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there was one adverse case involving an intermediate quantity of 2 kgs, for which, FIR was registered in Crime No.438 of 2025. The ground case involved 5 kgs of ganja, which is also an intermediate quantity for which, FIR was registered in Crime No.592 of

2025. The detenu was arrested on 24.11.2025, whereas, the detention order

was passed only on 15.12.2025.

4. It was contended that in both cases, intermediate quantity was involved, whereas the Detaining Authority in a casual manner has passed the detention order in a case where such an order is not warranted.

5. We are of the view that both in the adverse case as well as 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.

6. For this purpose, we rely on the judgment in Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244).

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order

of detention in Detention Order No.116/2025, dated 15.12.2025 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Palpandi, aged about 26 years, S/o.Senthilkumar, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. (N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,) 15.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Indu To

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3.The Chairman, Advisory Board, Zonal Office, Madurai Corporation, Anaiyur, Koodal Post, Near Bus Stand, Madurai. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai District. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.

AND

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

Indu H.C.P.(MD)No.523 of 2026 15.06.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Senthilkumar vs The State of Tamilnadu Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh,Honourable Mr Justic...