Elishamma @ Rani v. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,

Order (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) The mother of the detenu - Balachandran, S/o.Rajababu, branded as Cyber Law Offender and confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai under detention order dated 25.09.2025 has challenged the order of detention in this HCP.

¶2We have heard Mr.A.Samson, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (criminal side) for the respondents.

¶3One of the grounds in the detention order dated 25.09.2025 is that the detenu may be enlarged on bail. For this purpose, the detaining authority referred to the statement allegedly recorded from the petitioner under Section 180(3) of the BNSS to the effect that she has filed a bail petition before the Saidapet Court, which has been dismissed. Further, she is taking steps to file a Page2 of 6 bail application before the appropriate Court. A copy of the statement has been placed at page No.94 of the booklet.

¶4However, we find that the statement is 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 detenu. If at all the authority wishes to rely on the statement, such statement would necessarily have to be signed by the relative to support the apprehension of the authority.

¶5We 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:

¶8On the first question whether bail applications have been filed at all, we have perused the booklets that contain the avowed statements of M.Pitchaiammal at page 147, Nagomi at page 146 and Mohan at page 148 of the booklet.

¶9According 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.

¶10Having 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.

¶11The 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 Page3 of 6 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.

¶6In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.736/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 25.09.2025, is set aside.

¶7The detenu, viz., Balachandran, S/o. Rajababu, aged 26 years, confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is 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.) 02-06-2026 sl Index: Yes/No Speaking order Note to Registry: Issue today. Page4 of 6 To

¶1The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai District.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶4The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, North Zone, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 021.

¶5The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶6The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. Page5 of 6 HCPoNo.o2219oofo2025 DR.ANITAoSUMANTHoJ. AND SUNDERoMOHANoJ. SL HCPoNo.o2219oofo2025 02-06-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Elishamma @ Rani W/o.P.Rajababu, No.314, 7th Street, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Nagar, Puliyanthope, Chennai-12. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai District. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, North Zone, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 021. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition filed under article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS or any other Writ or order in the nature of writ call for the records in connection with the order of Page1 of 6 detention passed by the second respondent dated 25.09.2025 in BBCDEFGISSSV No.736/2025 against the petitioner's son Balachandran son of Rajababu aged about 26 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Honble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Samson For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (criminal Side)