Muniyammal v. The Secretary to the Government

Order (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) The wife of the detenu - Vanjinathan, S/o.Murali, branded as Goonda and confined in Central Prison, Vellore under detention order dated 07.09.2025 has challenged the order of detention in this HCP.

¶2We have heard Mr.P.Raman, 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 07.09.2025 is that the detenu may be enlarged on bail. The detaining authority referred to the statement allegedly recorded from the petitioner under Section 180(3) of the BNSS to the effect that they have not filed bail petition at that time, but in due course of time, she will make an attempt to file a bail application before the Page2 of 6 appropriate Court. A copy of the statement has been placed at page No.119 of the booklet.

¶4However, we find that the crime number has not been mentioned in the statement. Further the statement has not been signed. 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 Page3 of 6 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.

¶6In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Rc.No.772/2025/M6 D.No.33/2025, dated 07.09.2025, is set aside.

¶7The detenu, viz., Vanjinathan, S/o. Murali, aged 24 years, confined in Central Prison, Vellore, 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.) 17-06-2026 sl Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Note to Registry: Issue Today Page4 of 6 To

¶1The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶2District Collector and District Magistrate of Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶3The Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶4The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.

¶5The Inspector of Police, Oragadam Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

¶6The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶7The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. Page5 of 6 HCPoNo.o477oofo2026 DR.ANITAoSUMANTHoJ. AND SUNDERoMOHANoJ. SL HCPoNo.o477oofo2026 17-06-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Muniyammal W/o.Vanjinathan, No. 111/225, Santhiamman Koil Street, Vallakottai Village, Seriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. District Collector and District Magistrate of Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 3. The Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore. 5. The Inspector of Police, Oragadam Police Station, Kancheepuram District. ..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 appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent Page1 of 6 dt. 07.09.2025 in Rc.No. 772/2025/M6 D.No. 33/2025 against the petitioner husband Vanjinathan, Male aged 24 years S/o.Murali who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Raman For Respondent(s): Mr. C.R.Malarvannan Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)