Sulochana v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The mother of the detenu – Thirumani, aged 25 years, S/o.Rajkumar, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated

28.10.2025, 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 Government of Tamil Nadu for the respondents.

¶3The detention order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. Firstly, on perusal of records, it is seen that the special report sent by the sponsoring authority is undated. The compelling necessity to detain the detenu would depend on the date on which the sponsoring Page3 of 7 authority has sent his report. In the absence of the said date, the special report would become irrelevant and the compelling necessity to detain the detenu becomes doubtful.

¶4Further in 'Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another' reported in '2011 [5] SCC 244', the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that where the detention order is passed on any irrelevant material, then, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

5.Secondly, it is seen from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has not moved any bail application and he had relied upon a statement said to have been made by the brother of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that he is taking steps to file a bail application.

¶6On 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.

¶7Therefore, 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 above mentioned reasons, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

¶8In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.156/TNPD/APC/2025 dated 28.10.2025, is set aside. Page5 of 7

¶9The detenu, viz., Thirumani, aged 25 years, S/o.Rajkumar, 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.) 06-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order TSG Note: Issue order copy today. To

¶1The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

¶2The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City.

¶3The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

¶4The Inspector of Police, Ayapakkam Police Station, Avadi, Chennai. Page6 of 7

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

¶6The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. HCPoNo.o151oofo2026 DR.ANITAoSUMANTH,oJ. AND SUNDERoMOHAN,oJ. TSG HCPoNo.o151oofo2026 06-07-2026 Page7oofo7

Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Sulochana ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police, Ayapakkam Police Station, Avadi, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in No.156/TNPD/APC/2025 dated 28-10-2025 quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Page2 of 7 Thiru.Thirumani, S/o.Rajkumar, aged 25 years, set him at liberty, who is now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Jaisingh For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)