HCP No. 338 of 2026 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 338 of 2026 Y.Justin Prabhakaran, S/o.Yesa, D.20, 2nd Cross Street, Thiruvenkgadam Nagar, Tiruninravur, Tiruvallur District. (Y.Justin Prabhakaran is substituted in the place of original petitioner as per the order of this Court dated 02.06.2026 in Crl.MP.Nos.8225,8226 of 2026 and HCP.No.338 of 2026) ...Petitioner/Brother of the detenu Vs 1. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Additional Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Avadi City, Tiruvallur District. 3. The Superintendent of Prison The Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 338 of 2026 __________ 4. The Inspector of Police (Law and Order) T-11, Thiruninravur Police Station, Tiruvallur District. ...Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in detention order No.153/TNPD/APC/2025 dated 15.10.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner’s brother Thiru. Joseph Devakumar S/o.Yesa, Male aged about 39 years (wrongly mentioned as 40 years in the petition) branded as Goonda and now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr. J.Varun For Respondents: Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The brother of the detenu – Joseph Devakumar, S/o.Yesa, aged 39 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 15.10.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 338 of 2026 __________ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents. 3. Though several grounds have been raised, we are of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind. 4. It is seen from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has stated that the detenu was in remand and that he was aware that the detenu’s bail application was dismissed, and had relied upon a statement said to have been made by the brother of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that he is taking steps to file a bail application. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 338 of 2026 __________ 5. On 03.03.2026, in HCP Nos. 2129, 2179 and 2340 of 2025, we had held that the unsigned statement cannot be relied upon to infer that the detenu is likely to file bail application. We had reiterated and clarified this view in a subsequent case, i.e., HCP No.2356 of 2025 dated 22.06.2026, after we were informed that our view was held to be per incuriam by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in HCP (MD) No.369 of 2026 dated 19.06.2026. We have held that only a signed statement of a relative can be relied upon by the detaining authority to satisfy himself as regards the possibility of the detenu filing a bail application and that a Section 180(3) of BNSS statement cannot be the basis for such a satisfaction. Further, we find the said statement is not even dated. The date on which the statement is made would be relevant for the purpose of arriving at the aforesaid subjective satisfaction. In the absence of the date, that would be vitiated on this ground also. 6. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said statement recorded under Section 180(3) of BNSS, by the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is misconceived. Thus, the inference that the detention is warranted since https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 338 of 2026 __________ the detenu is likely to indulge in further criminal activities after his release on bail is based on the said wrong premise. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.153/TNPD/APC/2025 dated 15.10.2025, is set aside. 8. The detenu, viz., Joseph Devakumar, S/o.Yesa, aged 39 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. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 08-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Issue Order copy today. dk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 338 of 2026 __________ To 1. The Additional Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Avadi City, Tiruvallur District. 3. The Superintendent of Prison The Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police (Law and Order) T-11, Thiruninravur Police Station, Tiruvallur District. 5. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 338 of 2026 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk HCP No. 338 of 2026 08-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis