Selvam v. State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Order (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) The friend of the detenu – Rajesh, S/o Moorthy, branded as Goonda and confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai under detention order dated

29.10.2025 has challenged the order of detention in this HCP.

¶2There is no appearance for the petitioner and we have heard Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), learned counsel for the respondents.

¶3Though several grounds have been raised in this HCP, the main ground that appeals to us relates to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu may be enlarged on bail.

¶4It is an admitted position that neither the detenu nor his family members have moved bail application and this fact has been noted by the detaining authority. However, he goes on to apprehend that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to enlarge him on bail. For this purpose, he relies on the statement allegedly recorded from the relative of the detenu at Vol.I page No.78.

¶5We find, on a perusal of the same, that that statement recorded under Section 180(3) of the BNSS is not 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.

¶6We 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 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.

¶7In addition, the detaining authority has also referred to the bail order passed in Crl.O.P.No.30749 of 2024 by this Court. Though the charges are one and the same in the case of that accused and the present detenu, the facts are distinguishable. That was a case of patricide where the father of the accused had been pushed and had been done away with on account of grave and sudden provocation, whereas in the present case those facts do not arise.

¶8In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.878/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 29.10.2025, is set aside.

¶9The detenu, viz., Rajesh, aged 31 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-II, 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.) 08-07-2026 ssm Index: Yes/No Speaking order Note to Registry: Issue Today. To

¶1The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶2The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai -7.

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

¶4The Inspector of Police, V-1 Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai.

¶5The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶6The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. SSM 08-07-2026

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 Selvam S/o.Dayalan, No.212, mth Road, Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State Of Tamilnadu, Represented By The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai -7. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-Puzhal-II, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, V-1 Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records in Memo No. 878/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 passed by the 2nd respondent on 29.10.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to produce petitioner friend Rajesh S/o.Moorthy, aged about 31 years before this Hon'ble Court, who is now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal-II, and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): No appearance For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)