Vijayakumari Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dt. 14.11.2025 in BBCDEFGISSSV No. 946/2025 against the petitioner’s brother Boobalan, M/25 years, S/o.Vijayakumar, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Saranraj for Ms.D.Swathi For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

The sister of detenu - Boobalan, aged 25 years, S/o.Vijayakumar,

¶26

has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 14.11.2025, branding him as a ‘Drug Offender’ under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

¶27

We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

¶28

counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for respondents.

¶29

__________ Page 2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

HCP No. 521 of 2026

¶32

The Detention Order is liable to be quashed for more than one

¶33

reason. It is seen from the grounds of detention that the detenu is in remand and he had not filed any bail application. However, the detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been made by the sister of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that she is taking steps to file a bail application.

¶34

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) N0.369 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.

¶35

__________ Page 3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

HCP No. 521 of 2026

¶38

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.

¶39

6.That apart, in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu is in remand in Crime No.428/2025, on the file of the fourth respondent herein; that in a similar case, bail was granted to other accused by the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai-104, in Crl.M.P.No.1414 of 2021 dated 04.06.2021; and that therefore, there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, by filing appropriate bail application.

¶40

7.The detaining authority ought to have seen whether the facts in the bail orders relied upon by him were comparable to the facts of the cases against the detenu. In the order relied upon by the detaining authority, there were no previous cases pending as against the accused therein, whereas, in this case, the detenu has two adverse cases. Therefore, the reliance placed by the detaining authority on the said order

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

HCP No. 521 of 2026

¶44

in Crl.M.P.No.1414 of 2021 dated 04.06.2021, vitiates his subjective satisfaction as regards the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and the inference that the detenu is likely to indulge in further criminal activities after his release on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶45

In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.946/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 14.11.2025, is set aside.

¶46

The detenu, viz., Boobalan, aged 25 years, S/o.Vijayakumar,

¶47

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.

¶48

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 21-07-2026

¶49

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

¶50

Issue Order Copy today

¶51

ars

¶52

__________ Page 5 of 6

¶53

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