Swathi v. The State of Tamnilnadu Rep.By Its, Principal Secretary,

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The wife of the detenu – Stephen, S/o.Prabhudass, aged 35 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated

25.11.2025, branding him as 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). Page3 of 7

¶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 detenu is in remand and he had 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.

¶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 Page4 of 7

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.

¶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. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶7In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.986/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.11.2025, is set aside. Page5 of 7

¶8The detenu, viz., Stephen, S/o.Prabhudass, aged 35 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.) 10-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Note: Issue order copy today. Dk Page6 of 7 To

¶1The Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police/ Detaining Authority, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai - 66.

¶4The Inspector of Police, K-1, Sembium Police Station, Chennai.

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

¶6The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. HCPoNo.o678oofo2026 DR.ANITAoSUMANTH,oJ. AND SUNDERoMOHAN,oJ. dk HCPoNo.o678oofo2026 10-07-2026 Page7oofo7

Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Swathi W/o. Stephen, No.6/3, 4th Street, Ramalingam Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 079. ...Petitioner/Wife of the detenue Vs 1. The State of Tamnilnadu Rep.by its, Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police/ Detaining Authority, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai – 66. Page2 of 7 4. The Inspector of Police, K-1, Sembium Police Station, Chennai. ...Respondent(s) Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order made in No.986/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Second Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and improper. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Kingston Jerold For Respondents: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)