2026:MHC:2651 HCP No.503 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 503 of 2026 Usha D/o.Subramani, No.74, Bharathipuram, Periya Koodal, Near Housing Board, Aminjikarai, Chennai-29. ..Petitioner/Sister of the detenue Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its, Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2651 HCP No.503 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 7 4. The Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai. ...Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in No.777/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 09.10.2025 on the file of second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenue Ganesh @ Lingam, Son of Subramani, aged about 38 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy For Respondents: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The sister of the detenu – Ganesh @ Lingam, S/o.Subramani, aged 38 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 09.10.2025, 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 2026:MHC:2651 HCP No.503 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 7 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents. 3. The detention order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. It is seen from the grounds of detention that the detenu is in remand and he had not filed any bail application. However, the detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been made by the sister of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that she is taking steps to file a bail application. 4. 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) N0.369 of 2026 dated 19.06.2026. We have held that only a signed statement of a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2651 HCP No.503 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 7 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. 5. 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 the detenu is likely to indulge in further criminal activities after his release on bail is based on the said wrong premise. 6. That apart, the Government Order delegating the power of detention to the 2nd respondent herein has not been enclosed in the booklet provided to the detenu. It is well settled that if the relied upon documents are not furnished to the detenu, his right to make effective representation would be denied. In 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413', the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that non-supply of relevant documents to the detenu renders the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2651 HCP No.503 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 7 detention illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, 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.777/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 09.10.2025, is set aside. 8. The detenu, viz., Ganesh @ Lingam, S/o.Subramani, aged 38 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.) 10-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy today. dk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2651 HCP No.503 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 7 To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai. 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 2026:MHC:2651 HCP No.503 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 7 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk HCP No. 503 of 2026 10-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis