HCP No. 521 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. 521 of 2026 Vijayakumari C/o.Kabilan, No. 120, Thaikkal Thonithurai, Pachaiyankuppam, Cuddalore, TN 607 003. ..Petitioner/ Sister of the Detenu Vs 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Chennai District. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. 4. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police N-2 Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai District. ..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. 521 of 2026 __________ connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dt. 14.11.2025 in BBCDEFGISSSV No. 946/2025 against the petitioner’s brother Boobalan, M/25 years, S/o.Vijayakumar, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Saranraj for Ms.D.Swathi 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 sister of detenu - Boobalan, aged 25 years, S/o.Vijayakumar, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 14.11.2025, branding him as a ‘Drug Offender’ under Section 2(e) 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 521 of 2026 __________ 3. The Detention Order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. It is seen from the grounds of detention that the detenu is in remand and he had not filed any bail application. However, the detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been made by the sister of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that she is taking steps to file a bail application. 4. 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 521 of 2026 __________ 5. 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. 6.That apart, in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu is in remand in Crime No.428/2025, on the file of the fourth respondent herein; that in a similar case, bail was granted to other accused by the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai-104, in Crl.M.P.No.1414 of 2021 dated 04.06.2021; and that therefore, there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, by filing appropriate bail application. 7.The detaining authority ought to have seen whether the facts in the bail orders relied upon by him were comparable to the facts of the cases against the detenu. In the order relied upon by the detaining authority, there were no previous cases pending as against the accused therein, whereas, in this case, the detenu has two adverse cases. Therefore, the reliance placed by the detaining authority on the said order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 521 of 2026 __________ in Crl.M.P.No.1414 of 2021 dated 04.06.2021, vitiates his subjective satisfaction as regards the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and the inference that the detenu is likely to indulge in further criminal activities after his release on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.946/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 14.11.2025, is set aside. 9. The detenu, viz., Boobalan, aged 25 years, S/o.Vijayakumar, 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. 521 of 2026 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. ars To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Chennai District. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police N-2 Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai District. 5. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. HCP No. 521 of 2026 21-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis