Judgment · High Court

HCP No. 2326 of 2025__________Page1 of 5IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28-04-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANHCP No. 2326 of 2025 SubhaW/o.Desappan, No.12, Indra Nagar, Housing Board, Athipallam, Kasimedu, Chennai....Petitioner/Aunt of the detenue Vs1.State of Tamil Nadu represented BySecretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.

State Rep by Inspector of Police,N-4, Fishing Harbour Police Station, Chennai...Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2326 of 2025__________Page2 of 5Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent pertaining to the order made in Memo No.616/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, Dated 28.08.2025 in detaining the detenue under the TamilNadu Act 14/1982 as a brand of Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue, namely Arun Kumar Alias Kulla Arun Son of Viji, aged 23 years who is detained at the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :Mr. S.Karthick For Respondents: Mr.R.MuniyapparajAdditional Public ProsecutorAssisted byMr.M.Sylvester JohnORDER(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.)The aunt of the detenu – Arun Kumar Alias Kulla Arun, S/o Viji, aged 23 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 28.08.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).2. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.3. Though 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2326 of 2025__________Page3 of 5detaining authority as regards the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind.4. The detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been made by the relative of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that she is taking steps to file a bail application in the ground case. However, we find that the statement of the relative of the detenu is unsigned. We have in HCP No. 1684 of 2025 vide order dated 01.04.2026, held that, the unsigned statement cannot be relied upon to infer that the detenu is likely to file bail application.

Therefore, the reliance placed on the said statement by the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is misconceived. Therefore 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.