2026:MHC:3096 HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 Valli W/o.Raja, No.30/15, Nethaji Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041. .. Petitioner in HCP.No.478 of 2026 Dhanush, S/o.Sugumar, No.56, Nehruji Ninaivu Nagar 6th Street, Moolakothiram, Korukkupet, Chennai – 600 021. Now I am currently detained under Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai – 600 066. .. Petitioner in HCP.No.525 of 2026 Sangeetha W/o.Thambidurai, No.5A, Muthumariyamman Kovil Street, Thandai Periyar Nagar, Tharamani, Chennai – 600 113. .. Petitioner in HCP No. 538 of 2026 Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3096 HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 __________ Police (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai -600 007. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal -II, Chennai 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police, J-2, Adyar Police Station, Chennai - 600 020. ..Respondent(s) in all HCP’s Prayer in HCP No. 478 of 2026: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in No.936/B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V/2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner’s son Suresh @ Kutty S/o.Raja, aged 25 years, who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal -II, Chennai before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith and pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court. Prayer in HCP No. 525 of 2026: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order dt. 12.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in No.939/B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V/2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner / detenu, Dhanush, S/o. Sugumar, aged 22 years, who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal -II, Chennai before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith and pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court. Prayer in HCP No. 538 of 2026: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order dt. 12.11.2025 passed by the 2nd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3096 HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 __________ respondent in No.941/B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V/2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner’s son, Vignesh @ Tharamani Vikki, S/o. Thambidurai, aged 25 years, who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal -II, Chennai before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith and pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court. (In all cases) For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Mohan For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Amarnath, Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth. J.) In HCP No. 478 of 2025, the mother of Suresh @ Kutty (detenu), S/o. Raja, branded as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982) has challenged detention order dated 12.11.2025. 2. In HCP No. 525 of 2025, Dhanush (detenu), S/o. Sugumar, branded as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982) has challenged detention order dated 12.11.2025. 3. In HCP No. 538 of 2025, the mother of Vignesh @ Tharamani Vikki, (detenu), S/o. Thambidurai, branded as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982) has challenged detention order dated 12.11.2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3096 HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 __________ 4. We have heard Mr.K.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Amarnath, learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for the respondents in all HCP’s. 5. One of the grounds in the impugned orders of detention is the apprehension that the detenus may be enlarged on bail. However, the detenus have not moved bail application and hence there was no need for any apprehension on the part of the detaining authority that they 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 relatives under Section 180(3) of the BNSS to the effect that they are taking steps to enlarge them on bail. A copy of the statements have been placed at page No.151 of the booklet in all HCP’s. 6. However, we find that the statements are neither dated nor signed and hence there is nothing to support the satisfaction of the detaining authority that there are efforts on-going to secure bail for the detenus. If at all the authority had wished to rely on the documents, they would necessarily have to be signed by the relatives in order to support the apprehension of the authority. 7. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3096 HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 __________ 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. 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. 8. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3096 HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 __________ 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. 9. 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. 10. 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, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3096 HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 __________ 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. That apart, in the present case, the detaining authority refers to the bail granted in Crl.O.P.No.30749 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024 by this Court. We have compared the facts and circumstances of the present case with that of the accused in the aforesaid case. Though the charges are one and the same in both cases, that was a case of patricide where the father of the accused had been pushed and had been done away with on account of grave and sudden provocation, whereas in the present case those facts and circumstances do not arise. In fact, the facts are quite different, in that, the accused and the victim were not related and they were engaged in commercial transactions which was not the case in the relied-upon matter. 14. In light of the aforesaid discussion, these Habeas Corpus Petitions are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3096 HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 __________ allowed and the Detention Orders passed by the second respondent in Nos.936, 939 and 941/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, all dated 12.11.2025, are set aside. 15. The detenus, viz., Suresh @ Kutty, S/o. Raja, aged 25 years (HCP No. 478/26), Dhanush, S/o. Sugumar, aged 22 years (HCP No. 525/26) and Vignesh @ Tharamani Vikki, S/o. Thambidurai, aged 25 years (HCP No. 538/26) all confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai, are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M, J.) (S.M, J.) 27-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes SSM Note to Registry : Issue Today To 1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai -600 009. 3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal / Puzhal -II, Chennai 600 066. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3096 HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 __________ 4. The Inspector of Police J-2 Adyar Police Station, Chennai 600 020. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, 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:3096 HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. SSM HCP Nos. 478, 525 & 538 of 2026 27-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis