HCP No. 492 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 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 No. 492 of 2026 Sasikala ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, 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 of Prison, Central prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, H5, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 03.11.2025 in No.901/B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V/2025 against the petitioner’s son Prakash @ Ayyavu son of Lakshmipathy aged about 23 years who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 492 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Kalaikumar For Respondent(s): Mr. A. Amarnath, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The mother of the detenu – Prakash @ Ayyavu, S/o.Lakshmipathy, aged 23 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 03.11.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents. 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 has not filed any bail application. However, the detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been made by the mother 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 492 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 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. 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. 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. 6.That apart, the detaining authority has relied upon an order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 30749 of 2024 to infer that the detenu is likely is also to be likely released on bail, as and when he moved the bail application. 7.We find that the facts in the said case relied upon by the detaining authority are not similar. In that case, the occurrence took place due to a sudden https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 492 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 quarrel and the accused therein did not intend to cause the death of his own father, who fell down pursuant to the quarrel, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The facts in the present case are totally different, as the detenu is accused of causing the death of the deceased, on account of prior enmity. Therefore, the reliance placed on the order in Crl.O.P.No.30749 of 2024 is misconceived and consequently, the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, is vitiated. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned 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.901/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 03.11.2025, is set aside. 9. The detenu, viz., Prakash @ Ayyavu, S/o.Lakshmipathy, aged 23 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.) 27-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 492 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 Note: Issue order copy today. To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, 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 of Prison, Central prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, H5, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai District. 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. 492 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG HCP No. 492 of 2026 27-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis