Meena v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its the Secretary to the Government,

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

13.10.2025, 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 the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents. Page3 of 7

¶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.

¶4The detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been made by the wife of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that she is taking steps to file a bail application. However, we find that in the statement of the wife of the detenu there is no reference to the crime number of the ground case.

¶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) N0.369 of 2026 dated 19.06.2026. We have held that only a signed statement of a Page4 of 7 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.

¶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.62/Goonda/Salem City/2025 dated 13.10.2025, is set aside.

¶8The detenu, viz., Ananth, S/o.Panneerselvam, aged 35 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Salem, is hereby directed to be set Page5 of 7 at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 30-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order TSG Note: Issue order copy today. To

¶1The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem District.

¶4The Inspector of Police, Salem Town Crime Police Station, Salem City.

¶5The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. Page6 of 7

¶6The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. HCPoNo.o2380oofo2025 DR.ANITAoSUMANTH,oJ. AND SUNDERoMOHAN,oJ. TSG HCPoNo.o2380oofo2025 30-06-2026 Page7oofo7

Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Meena ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Salem Town Crime Police Station, Salem City. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed in C.M.P.No.62/Goonda/Salem City/2025 dated on 13.10.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same Page2 of 7 and directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband by name Ananth S/o.Panneerselvam aged about 35 years before this Court now confined in Central Prison, Salem and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Ms P. Hasnah, for Mr.C.Deepak Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr. C.R.Malarvannan, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)