Logeshwari Vs The State represented by its

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶13

2.Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai-600 007.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Puzhal Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066..

¶15

4.The Inspector of Police, E-4, Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai-600 018.

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

H.C.P.No.2168 of 2025 Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated: 25.08.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent in No.593/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 and quash the same and produce the detenue, Thiru.Srinath @ Puttima S/o. Ashok, aged about 22 years, detained at Puzhal Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manoharan

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶24

The mother of one Srinath @ Puttima S/o Ashok, has approached this Court seeking quash of detention order dated 25.08.2025 branding the detenu as a ‘Goonda’.

¶25

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have also perused the impugned order and the booklet containing the grounds and the supporting materials.

¶26

3.One of the grounds raised by the detaining authority is that the detenu would be enlarged on bail and hence, the order of detention was justified. The detaining authority categorically however notes that no bail application was being moved, but infers that his relatives are taking steps

¶27

to enlarge him on bail. The aforesaid inference is supported by a 2/5

¶28

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

¶29

H.C.P.No.2168 of 2025 statement recorded from the wife of the detenu. However, we find that the statement placed at page 34 of volume-I of the booklet is not even signed by the wife. Hence, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the statement was indeed recorded from the wife.

¶30

4.We have consistently been taking the view that if at all the statement of the relative is to be relied upon by an authority to support his inference that the detenu may be enlarged on bail, it is necessary that such a statement must be signed. In the absence of the same, the statement is liable to be eschewed and we do so in the present case as well.

¶31

5.In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.593/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 25.08.2025, is set aside.

¶32

6.The detenu, viz., Srinath @ Puttima, S/o. Ashok, aged 22 years,

¶33

who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶34

vs Index:Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes Note to Registry: Issue Today.

¶35

3/5

¶36

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

¶37

H.C.P.No.2168 of 2025

¶38

To

¶39

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶40