2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No.454 of 2026 Thenmozhi W/o.Balu, No.33/34, V.R.Pillai Street, Triplicane, Chennai - 600 005. ...Petitioner/Mother of the detenu Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai - 66. 4. Inspector of Police, F2 Egmore Police Station, Chennai. ...Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records in connection with the order of detention of passed by the second respondent dated 21.11.2025 in Memo No.974/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 (wrongly mentioned as Memo __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026 No.974/BCDEFGISSSV/2025 in the petition) against the Petitioner’s son Vinoth Son of Balu, Male aged about 36 years, the detenue herein confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal at Chennai who has been detained under Act 14/82 as a Goonda and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce him before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai.

For Petitioner : Ms.J.K.Madhumathi for Mr.M.Rajavelu For Respondents : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The mother of the detenu – Vinoth, S/o.Balu, aged 36 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 21.11.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents. 3. The detention order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. It is seen from the grounds of detention that the detenu is in remand and he has not filed any bail application. However, the detaining authority has relied upon a __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026 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.

4. On 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) No.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. 5. Therefore, 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. __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026

6. That apart, the Government Order delegating the power of detention to the 2nd respondent herein has not been enclosed in the booklet furnished to the detenu. It is well settled that if the relied upon documents are not furnished to the detenu, his right to make effective representation would be denied. In 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413', the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that non-supply of relevant documents to the detenu renders the detention illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.974/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 21.11.2025, is set aside. 8. The detenu, viz., Vinoth, S/o.Balu, aged 36 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.) 14-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy today. dk __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026 To 1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai - 66. 4. Inspector of Police

F2 Egmore Police Station, Chennai. 5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk HCP No. 454 of 2026 14-07-2026 (1/2) __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No.454 of 2026 Thenmozhi W/o.Balu, No.33/34, V.R.Pillai Street, Triplicane, Chennai - 600 005. ...Petitioner/Mother of the detenu Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai - 66. 4. Inspector of Police, F2 Egmore Police Station, Chennai. ...Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records in connection with the order of detention of passed by the second respondent dated 21.11.2025 in Memo No.974/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 (wrongly mentioned as Memo __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026 No.974/BCDEFGISSSV/2025 in the petition) against the Petitioner’s son Vinoth Son of Balu, Male aged about 36 years, the detenue herein confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal at Chennai who has been detained under Act 14/82 as a Goonda and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce him before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai.

For Petitioner : Ms.J.K.Madhumathi for Mr.M.Rajavelu For Respondents : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The mother of the detenu – Vinoth, S/o.Balu, aged 36 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 21.11.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents. 3. The detention order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. It is seen from the grounds of detention that the detenu is in remand and he has not filed any bail application. However, the detaining authority has relied upon a __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026 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.

4. On 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) No.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. 5. Therefore, 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. __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026

6. That apart, the Government Order delegating the power of detention to the 2nd respondent herein has not been enclosed in the booklet furnished to the detenu. It is well settled that if the relied upon documents are not furnished to the detenu, his right to make effective representation would be denied. In 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413', the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that non-supply of relevant documents to the detenu renders the detention illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.974/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 21.11.2025, is set aside. 8. The detenu, viz., Vinoth, S/o.Balu, aged 36 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.) 14-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy today. dk __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026 To 1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai - 66. 4. Inspector of Police

F2 Egmore Police Station, Chennai. 5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2747 HCP No.454 of 2026 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk HCP No. 454 of 2026 14-07-2026 (1/2) __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis