HCP No.424 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No.424 of 2026 Mrs.Devi W/o.Ashok Kumar, No.102, Wood Warf 2nd Street, Walltax Road, Chennai - 600 079. ...Petitioner/Mother of Detenue Vs 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, C-3, Seven Wells 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 connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 21.11.2025 in No.971/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 against petitioner son Udhayakumar, aged about 20 years son of Ashok Kumar, who is confined at Central Prison Puzhal, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.424 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Ms.M.Preethi 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 – Udhayakumar, aged 20 years, S/o.Ashok Kumar, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 04.11.2025, branding him as a ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). 2. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for 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 that the detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu is in remand in two cases and has moved bail https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.424 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 applications before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai in Crl.M.P.Nos.7240/2025 and 7239/2025 and both the applications were dismissed on 12.11.2025. 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 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. 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.424 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 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. 7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.971/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 04.11.2025, is set aside. 8. The detenu, viz., Udhayakumar, aged 20 years, S/o.Ashok Kumar, 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.) 14-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy today. Dk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.424 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, C-3, Seven Wells 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 HCP No.424 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk HCP No. 424 of 2026 14-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis