HCP No. 283 of 2026 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 283 of 2026 Chithra W/o. Ramesh, No.243, G-Block, Tsunami Quarters, Thazhankuppam Ennore, Chennai - 600 057. ..Petitioner/ Mother of the Detenu Vs 1. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its, Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Avadi City. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600066. 4. The Inspector of Police, M5 - Ennore Police Station, Chennai. Cr.No.769 of 2025. ..Respondent(s) Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 283 of 2026 __________ detention order No.176/TNPD/APC/2025 dated 28.11.2025 on the file of the 2nd Respondent and quash the same and direct the Respondents herein to produce Petitioners Son Thiru.Johnson @ John, aged 19 years S/o. Ramesh, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at Liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Silambuselvan 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 mother of the detenu – Johnson @ John, aged 19 years S/o. Ramesh, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 28.11.2025, 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 283 of 2026 __________ satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind. 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 father of the detenu is 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 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) 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 283 of 2026 __________ 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. 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.176/TNPD/APC/2025 dated 28.11.2025, is set aside. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 283 of 2026 __________ 8. The detenu, viz., Johnson @ John, aged 19 years S/o. Ramesh, 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.) 21-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Issue Order copy today. ars https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 283 of 2026 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. ars To 1. The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Avadi City. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600066. 4. The Inspector of Police, M5 - Ennore Police Station, Chennai. 5. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. HCP No. 283 of 2026 21-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis