2026:MHC:2685 HCP No.2712 of 2025 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No.2712 of 2025 Latha W/o.Sundar, No.802, C Block, Moolakuthalam, Housing Board, Old Washermenpet, Chennai. ...Petitioner/Wife of the Detenue Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its, Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police, J-4 Kotturpuram Police Station, Chennai. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. ...Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to Petitioner’s husband detention under Tamil Nadu, Act 14 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2685 HCP No.2712 of 2025 __________ 1982 vide detention order, dated 17.11.2025 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings No.952/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said Petitioner’s husband namely Sundar, aged 36 years, son of Anthonydoss, before this Court and set him at liberty now petitioner’s husband detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. For Petitioner: Mr.C.C.Chellappan 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 wife of the detenu – Sundar, aged 36 years, son of Anthonydoss, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 17.11.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2685 HCP No.2712 of 2025 __________ 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.In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu is in remand and had filed a bail application in Cr.M.P.No.10984 of 2025 before the learned Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai – 15, and that the same was dismissed on 07.11.2025. However, the sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file another bail application before the appropriate court. The detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been made by the wife of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that she is taking steps to file a bail application. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2685 HCP No.2712 of 2025 __________ 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 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 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2685 HCP No.2712 of 2025 __________ 7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.952/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 17.11.2025, is set aside. 8. The detenu, viz., Sundar, aged 36 years, S/o.Anthonydoss, 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.) 13-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Issue order copy today. dk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2685 HCP No.2712 of 2025 __________ To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police, J-4 Kotturpuram Police Station, Chennai. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, 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:2685 HCP No.2712 of 2025 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk HCP No. 2712 of 2025 13-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis