2026:MHC:2684 HCP No.2554 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.2554 of 2025 Joshpin W/o.Devadoss, No.15/2, Sanjay Gandhi Street, B.V. Nagar, PTMS 9th Street, Pattabiram, Chennai – 600 072. ...Petitioner/Mother of the Detenue Vs 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 Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66. 4. The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, W-36, All Women Police Station, Puzhal. ...Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2684 HCP No.2554 of 2025 __________ with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 10.11.2025 in Memo No.917/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 against petitioner’s son namely Robert Anthony, Male 30 years, S/o. Devadoss, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court. For Petitioner: Ms.S.Rohini 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 mother of the detenu – Robert Anthony, aged 30 years, S/o.Devadoss, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 10.11.2025, branding him as ‘Sexual Offender’ under Section 2(ggg) 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:2684 HCP No.2554 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.746 of 2025 before the learned Judge of Special Court for Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Cases, Thiruvallur, 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 father of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that he 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:2684 HCP No.2554 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:2684 HCP No.2554 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.917/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 10.11.2025, is set aside. 8. The detenu, viz., Robert Anthony, aged 30 years, S/o.Devadoss, 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:2684 HCP No.2554 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 Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66. 4. The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, W-36, All Women Police Station, Puzhal. 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:2684 HCP No.2554 of 2025 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk HCP No. 2554 of 2025 13-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis