2026:MHC:2845 HCP No.2497 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 2497 of 2025 G.Thulasi S/o.Gopal, No.161/43-1, Selliyamman Theradi Street, Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District 603 306 ...Petitioner/Father of the Detenu Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police K-1, Sembium Police Station, Chennai District. ...Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the Detention Order issued by the second respondent herein in Memo https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2845 HCP No.2497 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 No.915/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 08.11.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu namely Suresh, aged about 36 years, the son of the petitioner herein before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith from the third respondent prison viz., the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai. For Petitioner: Mr.G.Mageshkumar 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 father of the detenu – Suresh, aged 36 years, S/o.Thulasi, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 08.11.2025, 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. 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2845 HCP No.2497 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 6 4. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu is in remand and has not filed any bail application. However, the sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file a 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 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2845 HCP No.2497 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 6 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. 7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.915/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 08.11.2025, is set aside. 8. The detenu, viz., Suresh, aged 36 years, S/o.Thulasi, 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.) 17-07-2026 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:2845 HCP No.2497 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police K-1, Sembium Police Station, Chennai District. 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:2845 HCP No.2497 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk HCP No. 2497 of 2025 17-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis