HCP No.123 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 7 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.123 of 2026 S.Usha W/o. Saravanan, No.586, C-Kalyanapuram, Goodshed Main Road, Vysarpadi, Chennai - 600 039. ...Petitioner/Mother of the Detenue Vs 1. The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.123 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 7 4. The Inspector of Police, P3, Vyasarpadi Police Station, Chennai - 600 039. ...Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the Second Respondent herein and made in BBCDEFGISSSV - No.932/2025 dated 12.11.2025, and to set aside the same and directing the fourth respondent to produce the detenue, the petitioner’s son, Praveen Kumar Son of Saravanan, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and thereby setting him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.D.Anantha Padmanabhan 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 mother of the detenu – Praveen Kumar, S/o. Saravanan, aged 24 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 12.11.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.123 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 7 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. 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.123 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 7 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. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.123 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 7 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.932/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 12.11.2025, is set aside. 8. The detenu, viz., Praveen Kumar, S/o. Saravanan, aged 24 years, 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 Note: Issue order copy today. dk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.123 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 7 To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police, P3, Vyasarpadi Police Station, Chennai - 600 039. 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.123 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 7 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk HCP No. 123 of 2026 21-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis