Birunthasri v. The Secretary to the Government

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The wife of the detenu – Gopi, aged 24 years, S/o.Kannan, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 21.11.2025, branding him as 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents.

¶3Though several grounds have been raised, we are of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind.

¶4It is seen from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority had stated that the detenu has not moved any bail application and had relied upon a Page3 of 6 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.

¶5On 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) No.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.

¶6Therefore, 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. Hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed. Page4 of 6

¶7In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.89/Goonda/Salem City/2025, dated 21.11.2025, is set aside.

¶8The detenu, viz., Gopi, aged 24 years, S/o.Kannan, who is now confined in Central Prison, Salem, 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.) 08-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Note: Issue order copy today. dk Page5 of 6 To

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

¶2The Commissioner of Police, Salem City.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem-7.

¶4The Inspector of Police, Kondalampatty Police Station, Salem City.

5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶6The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. HCPoNo.2688oofo2025 DR.ANITAoSUMANTH,oJ. AND SUNDERoMOHAN,oJ. dk HCPoNo.o2688oofo2025 08-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Birunthasri W/o. Gopi, No.2/328, Perumal Kovil Medu, 7th Cross, Dadagapatty, Salem and District. ...Petitioner/Wife of the Detenue Vs 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem-7. 4. The Inspector of Police, Kondalampatty Police Station, Salem City. ...Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in Connection with the order of Detention passed by the Second respondent dated 21.11.2025 in C.M.P. No.89/Goonda/Salem City/2025 against the Petitioner Husband Gopi, Male aged 24 years, S/o.Kannan, who is confined at Central Prison, Salem and Page2 of 6 set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents: Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)