Malathi Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order BBCDEFGISSSV 618/2025 dated 28.08.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and to produce the petitioner’s son Mr.Anushkumar @ Uppu, S/o. Thavamani, aged about 21 years, the detenue now confined in central Prison, Puzhal II, before this Court and set the petitioner’s son Mr.Anushkumar @ Uppu, S/o. Thavamani aged about 21 years the detenue herein at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sugumar For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.)

¶25

The mother of the detenu – Anushkumar @ Ooppu, S/o. Thavamani, aged 21 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).

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

¶27

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 detaining authority as regards the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind.

¶28

Page2 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

HCP No. 1896 of 2025

¶31

The detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been

¶32

made by the mother 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

¶33

the statement of the mother of the detenu is unsigned. We have in HCP No. 1684 of 2025 vide order dated 01.04.2026, held that, the unsigned statement

¶34

cannot be relied upon to infer that the detenu is likely to file bail application.

¶35

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.

¶36

In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.618/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 28.08.2025 is set aside.

¶37

The detenu, viz.,Anushkumar @ Ooppu, S/o. Thavamani, aged 21 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.

¶38

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 28-04-2026

¶39

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶40

Page3 of 5

¶41

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

¶42

HCP No. 1896 of 2025

¶43

dk