Preetha Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

H.C.P.No.1773 of 2025 connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 06.08.2025 in Memo No.120/TNPD/APC/2025 against the petitioner’s husband namely Seena @ Seenivasan, Male, aged 25 years, S/o. Rathinam, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶20

ORDER (Made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)

¶21

The wife of the detenu has challenged the detention order dated

¶22

06.08.2025 passed against her husband, who has been branded as Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982).

¶23

The detaining authority has referred to seven adverse cases and

¶24

the ground case on which the detention order has been passed was registered for the offences under section 296(b) and 103(1) of the BNS, 2023.

¶25

The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is 2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

H.C.P.No.1773 of 2025 that the detenu has not filed any bail application before the trial court or

¶28

the High Court; that the detaining authority however has relied upon the affidavit of the sponsoring authority to conclude that the detenu is making attempts to file a bail application; that the affidavit of the sponsoring authority is based on the statement said to have been given by the petitioner to the sponsoring authority, which is undated and, that therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards his conclusion that the detenu is making attempts to file a bail application is vitiated.

¶29

Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶30

It is seen from the detention order that the detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner on behalf of detenu is taking steps to file a bail application. The said statement is based on the affidavit of the sponsoring authority which in turn is based on the statement said to have been given by the wife of the petitioner. The said statement is undated.

¶31

This Court has repeatedly held that an undated statement cannot be the basis to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to file a bail application. Therefore, we are, inclined to set aside the impugned order on this ground alone.

¶32

In fact, this Court had quashed the detention order to a detenu 3/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

H.C.P.No.1773 of 2025

¶35

who is a co-accused in this ground case in HCP No. 1761 of 2025 dated

¶36

02.03.2026, on the very same point.

¶37

In light of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and

¶38

the Detention Order passed by the second respondent dated 06.08.2025 in No.120/TNPD/APC/2025 is hereby set aside.

¶39

The detenu, viz., Seena @ Seenivasan, male, aged 25 years,

¶40

S/o. Rathinam, 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.

¶41

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssm

¶42

Note to Registry : Issue Today

¶43

To

¶44