2026:MHC:2908 HCP No. 2649 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 2649 of 2025 Ashok S/o. Jayaraman, No.7/443, Sivasakthi Nagar, Old Pallavaram, Chennai 600 091. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep By the Additional Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police, S-9, Pazhavathangal Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ of direction calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.899/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 03.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2908 HCP No. 2649 of 2025 under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to Produce the Petitioner’s son Thiru. Arun @ Maadu Arun S/o. Ashok, aged about 25 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon’ble Court and set the petitioner’s son Thiru. Arun @ Maadu Arun S/o. Ashok, aged about 25 years the detenue herein at liberty and pass such further or appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render Justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Deva 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.) One Arun @ Maadu Arun, aged 25 years, S/o Ashok, has suffered an order of detention dated 03.11.2025 and his father has approached this Court seeking to set aside the detention order. 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. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2908 HCP No. 2649 of 2025 4.We have perused the Special Report which is placed at page 95 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 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. 7. Further the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is premised on order dated 15.12.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1842 of 2020 wherein bail was granted to that accused on the ground that the properties/contraband allegedly seized had not been produced even though 37 days have elapsed since the accused was in custody. However, in the present __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2908 HCP No. 2649 of 2025 case, Form No.91 which details the properties sent to the Magistrate reveals that the contraband seized has been sent to the Court. Therefore, we are of the view that for the aforesaid reasons the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside. 8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No.899/2025, dated 03.11.2025 is set aside. 9. The detenu, viz., Arun @ Maadu Arun, S/o. Ashok, aged 25 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, 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.) 20-07-2026 sl Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes Note to Registry: Issue Today. To 1. The Additional Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2908 HCP No. 2649 of 2025 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police, S-9, Pazhavathangal Police Station, Chennai. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai -9. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2908 HCP No. 2649 of 2025 DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. SL HCP No. 2649 of 2025 20-07-2026 __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis