2026:MHC:2834 HCP No. 65 of 2026 __________ 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. 65 of 2026 Alamelu W/o. Arulselvam, No.57, Pumping Station, Chindatripet, Chennai-600002. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner Of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector Of Police, F-1, Chindatripet Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, or any other order or direction in the nature of Writ, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in No.984/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 25.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenue, namely Dhanush @ Kakkunju, aged 22 S/o. Arulselvam as Goonda, now he is confined https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2834 HCP No. 65 of 2026 __________ in Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai before this Hon’ble Court. 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 Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) The mother of one Dhanush @ Kakkunju (detenu) S/o.Arulselvam, who was detained as a ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’) has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 25.11.2025. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised various grievances as against the impugned order of detention. He also points out that the Special Report that forms an important basis for the grounds of detention, is not even dated. 3. We have heard both learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (criminal side) for the respondents. 4. We have perused the Special Report which is placed at page no. 31 of the booklet furnished. As rightly pointed out, we find the same undated. Insofar as the Special Report is one of the important documents, based on which the decision to detain the petitioner has been taken, the same ought to have been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2834 HCP No. 65 of 2026 __________ dated, to establish credibility. 5. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would depend on the date on which the sponsoring authority has sent his report. In the absence of the said date, the special report would become irrelevant and the compelling necessity to detain the detenu becomes doubtful. That apart, in the absence of a date, the proximity of the document to the incriminating events is also lost, and to this extent, there is a snappage of the link between that document and the other events. 6. In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another (2011 [5] SCC 244), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that where the detention order is passed on any irrelevant material, then, the detention order is liable to be quashed. Therefore, we are of the view that for the aforesaid reasons the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside. 7. That apart, one of the grounds in the impugned order of detention is the apprehension that the detenu may be enlarged on bail. However, the detenu has not moved bail application and hence there was no need for any apprehension on the part of the detaining authority that he would be enlarged on bail. In order to sustain the subjective satisfaction, the detaining authority makes reference to the statement avowedly recorded from the detenu’s relative under Section 180(3) of the BNSS to the effect that they are taking steps to enlarge him on bail. A copy of the statement has been placed at page No.32 of the booklet. 8. However, we find that the statement is unsigned and hence there is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2834 HCP No. 65 of 2026 __________ nothing to support the satisfaction of the detaining authority that there are efforts on-going to secure bail for the detenu. If at all the authority had wished to rely on the document, it would necessarily have to be signed by the relative to support the apprehension of the authority. 9. We have, in fact, taken a similar view in our order dated 03.03.2026 in HCP Nos. 2129, 2179 and 2340 of 2025 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted below: 8. On the first question whether bail applications have been filed at all, we have perused the booklets that contain the avowed statements of M.Pitchaiammal at page 147, Nagomi at page 146 and Mohan at page 148 of the booklet. 9. According to the petitioners, there are three flaws in the statements recorded. Firstly, they are unsigned, secondly, they are undated and thirdly, the crime number mentioned therein is incorrect, insofar as the crime number mentioned is 332 of 2025, whereas the crime number in the ground case in all three cases is 378 of 2025. 10. Having considered the rival contentions, we agree with the petitioners that the statements relied upon by the respondents do not support their case. Firstly, the statements are indeed unsigned and undated. There is hence absolutely no clarity, much less certainty, as to when they were recorded. 11. The description of the statements on the top of the page refers to Section 180(3) of the BNSS which corresponds to Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. A statement under Section 161 is recorded in the course of investigation and the provisions of Section 162 stipulate that such a statement is not expected to be signed. That may be so. However, since in the present cases, the respondents seek to draw the benefit of those statements, it is necessary for the statements to have been signed in order to support the conclusion that Pitchaiammal, Nagomi, and Mohan are taking steps to obtain bail in the cases of the respective detenus. In the absence of a signature, these statements cannot be relied upon for this purpose. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2834 HCP No. 65 of 2026 __________ 12. ………… 13. ……... We hence eschew the statements in toto for the purposes of the present cases. As a sequitur, subjective satisfaction of the Sponsoring Authority that M.Pitchaiammal, Nagomi and Mohan are taking steps to obtain bail, based on the above statements stands vitiated and the argument of the petitioners on this count is accepted. 10. Incidentally, our attention is drawn to an order passed in HCP (MD) N0.369 of 2026 dated 19.06.2026 passed by the co-ordinate Bench sitting at Madurai, wherein an order passed by this Bench in HCP Nos. 2129, 2179 and 2340 of 2025 dated 03.03.2026 was relied upon by that petitioner. The Bench has opined that the order is per incuriam and has rendered the following observations: 11. We have carefully gone through the order passed in HCP.Nos. 2129, 2179 and 2340 of 2025 dated 03.03.2026. The Division Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration the bar contained under Section 162 of Cr.P.C., which provides that such statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., need not be signed, proceeded to hold that when such statements are relied upon while passing the detention order, it has to be necessarily signed failing which such statement cannot be relied upon by the Detaining Authority. 12. In our considered view, the above finding of the Division Bench is not in line with Sections 161 and 162 of Cr.P.C., / 180 and 181 of BNSS. The provisions of Cr.P.C., / BNSS makes it clear that the Police Officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an investigation and such statement recorded by the Investigation Officer need not be signed by the person, who makes it. Thus, there is a bar provided under Section 162 of Cr.P.C., / 181 of BNSS. An exception cannot be carved out while dealing with a challenge to the detention order. The finding of the Division Bench at Paragraph No.11 of the order runs contrary to the statutory provision and therefore, it has to be necessarily held to be per incuriam. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2834 HCP No. 65 of 2026 __________ 11. We believe that our order has been misconstrued and has not been understood in proper perspective. It was never the intention of the Bench to conclude that a statement under Section 180 (3) of BNSS or Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 should be signed by the deponent, being conscious of the statutory requirement that obviates a necessity of signature on the statements recorded under the aforesaid provisions. 12. Our intention was to state that if at all those statements were sought to be taken advantage of, to buttress the subjective satisfaction of the sponsoring/detaining authority while passing an order under Act 14 of 1982, then it is necessary that the material relied upon by that authority must be seen to emanate from the deponent himself/herself, to be credible. 13. A statement under Section 180(3) of the BNSS or Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. would thus not come to the aid of the sponsoring/detaining authority, and would not contribute credible material that would support his subjective satisfaction. 14. In fact, both Sections 180(3) of BNSS and Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. relate to the examination of witnesses in the course of investigation of a case and such statements would hence be of no avail for the purpose of supporting subjective satisfaction in cases of detention. We, hence, reiterate our view in the present matter as well. 15. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.984/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2834 HCP No. 65 of 2026 __________ 25.11.2025 is set aside. 16. The detenu, viz., Dhanush @ Kakkunju, S/o.Arulselvam, male aged 22 years, confined in Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai, is 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 order Neutral Citation: Yes SSM Note to Registry : Issue Today To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner Of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector Of Police, F-1, Chindatripet Police Station, Chennai. 5. The Superintendent Of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 7. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2834 HCP No. 65 of 2026 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. SSM HCP No. 65 of 2026 17-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis