HCP No. 62 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 7 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. 62 of 2026 Elavarasi ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Addl.Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police (L & O), R-11 Ramapuram Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 10.11.2025 in No.918/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner’s husband Thiru.Dhanasekar, male, aged 29, Son of Ganesan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set aside the same and consequently direct the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 62 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 7 respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr C. Vignesh For Respondent(s): 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 – Dhanasekar, aged 29 years, S/o Ganesan has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 10.11.2025, 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. 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 wife of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that she is taking steps to file a bail application. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 62 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 7 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 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 62 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 7 6.That apart, in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu is in remand in two cases ie., Crime No.301/2025 (the last of the adverse cases) and Crime No.312/2025 (the ground case), on the file of the fourth respondent herein; and that in similar cases, bail was granted to other accused by this Court, in Crl.O.P.No.25228 of 2024 on 14.10.2024 and by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur in Crl.M.P.No.3711 of 2025 on 17.07.2025 and that therefore, there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, by filing appropriate bail application. 7.The detaining authority ought to have seen whether the facts in the bail orders relied upon by him was comparable to the facts of the cases against the detenu. In the order relied upon by the detaining authority in Crl.M.P.No.3711/2025, the accused therein was accused of the offences under Section 304(2) of BNS. Whereas, in Crime No.301/2025, the detenu was accused of the offence of criminal tress-pass (Section 329(2) of BNS) and snatching (Section 304(2) of BNS). In another order relied upon by the detaining authority in Crl.O.P.No.25228 of 2024, the accused therein was accused of the offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 309(4), 311 and 351 (3) of BNS, whereas, in Crime No.312/2025, the detenu is accused of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 62 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 7 offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 125, 324(4), 311, 351(3) of BNS. The facts and the offences in the two orders are dissimilar to the facts and offences against the detenu. Therefore, the reliance placed by the detaining authority on the said orders, vitiate his subjective satisfaction as regards the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. For both the reasons, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.918/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 10.11.2025, is set aside. 9. The detenu, viz., Dhanasekar, aged 29 years, S/o Ganesan, 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 TSG https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 62 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 7 Note: Issue order copy today To 1. The Addl.Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police (L & O), R-11 Ramapuram 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. 62 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 7 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG HCP No. 62 of 2026 14-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis