(Prayer in HCP No. 356 of 2026: Habeas Corpus petition filed under article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of a Writ of Habeas corpus to call for the entire records, relating to the petitioner’s husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 25.10.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent made in proceedings Memo No.843/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner’s husband namely S.Mahendiran, S/o.Subramani, aged 45 years before this Hon’ble High court and set the petitioner’s husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioner’s husband detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

In HCP No. 13 of 2026: Habeas Corpus petition filed under article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to calling for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent made in his proceedings in No.888/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 31.10.2025 in detaining the detenu under section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Sexual Offender and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the Detenu namely Thangeswaran S/o. Ganesan, male, aged about 53 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this hon’ble court and set him at Liberty.

In HCP No. 2760 of 2025: Habeas Corpus petition filed under article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of habeas Corpus or any other writ or order or direction calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in No.887/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 31.10.2025 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to produce the detenue Bharathi @ Bharathikannan, S/o.Subbaiah aged about 63 years, petitioner’s father now confined at Central prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

In HCP No. 2263 of 2025: Habeas Corpus petition filed under article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records in Detention order in No.776/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 09.10.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and SET ASIDE the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner’s aunt/Detenu Tmt.Poonkodi W/o.Imran Khan aged about 38 years now confined in Special Prison for women at Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty.

In HCP No. 2538 of 2025: Habeas Corpus petition filed under article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ to call for the records pertaining to the detention order dt. 27.10.2025 in No. 863/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and issue direction to produce the petitioner husband/detenue namely (Ramesh aged 40 years) presently confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.)

Common Order:

Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.

1. In HCP.No.356 of 2026, the wife of the detenu – Mahendran, S/o. Subramani, branded as Sexual Offender and confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai under detention order dated 25.10.2025 has challenged the order of detention in this HCP.

2. In HCP.No.13 of 2026, the son of the detenu – Thangeswaran, S/o. Ganesan, branded as Sexual Offender and confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai under detention order dated 31.10.2025 has challenged the order of detention in this HCP.

3. In HCP.No.2760 of 2025, the son of the detenu – Bharathi @ Bharathikannan, S/o. Subbaiah, branded as Sexual Offender and confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai under detention order dated 31.10.2025 has challenged the order of detention in this HCP.

4. In HCP.No.2263 of 2025, the nephew of the detenu – Poonkodi, W/o. Imrankhan, branded as Immoral Traffic Offender and confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai under detention order dated 09.10.2025 has challenged the order of detention in this HCP.

5. In HCP.No.2538 of 2025, the wife of the detenu – Ramesh, W/o. Kumarasamy, branded as Sexual Offender and confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai under detention order dated 27.10.2025 has challenged the order of detention in this HCP.

6. We have heard Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel for Mr.G.Mani Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner in HCP.No.356 of 2026 and for Mr.J.Jaihar David, learned counsel for the petitioner in HCP.No.2538 of 2025, Mr.S.Anbazhagan, learned counsel for the petitioner in HCP.No.13 of 2026, Mr.S.Santhanam, learned counsel for the petitioner in HCP.No.2760 of 2025 and Ms.R.Subadra Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner in HCP.No.2263 of 2025.

7. We have heard Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) who raised a serious grievance pointing out that a 15 year old child is alleged to have been sexually manipulated and abused by the accused who have also used her for prostitution.

8. The fact of the matter is that there are 9 accused in the matter and A3 to A5 who were arrested were released immediately. Some of the accused have sought bail before the trial Court and their bail applications are stated to be under consideration by the Courts. Some others have not sought bail at all.

9. While appreciating the grievance of the learned counsel for the respondents, we have no doubt that the Courts considering the bail applications will view the alleged offences in line with the gravity of the same in deciding the bail applications.

10. One of the grounds in orders dated 25.10.2025, 31.10.2025, 09.10.2025 and 27.10.2025 in support of the detentions is that the detenus may be enlarged on bail. The detaining authority has referred to the statements allegedly recorded from the relative of the detenus under Section 180(3) of the BNSS to the effect that they have not filed bail petition at that time, but in due course of time, they will make an attempt to file bail applications before the appropriate Court.

11. However, we find that the statements are not signed and hence there is nothing to support the satisfaction of the detaining authority that there are efforts on-going to secure bail for the detenus. If at all the authority wishes to rely on the document, it would necessarily have to be signed by the relative to support the apprehension of the authority.

12. We have, in fact, taken a similar view in our order dated 03.03.2026 in HCP Nos. 2129, 2179 and 2340 of 2025 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted below:

                   8. On the first question whether bail applications have been filed at all, we have perused the booklets that contain the avowed statements of M.Pitchaiammal at page 147, Nagomi at page 146 and Mohan at page 148 of the booklet.

                   9. According to the petitioners, there are three flaws in the statements recorded. Firstly, they are unsigned, secondly, they are undated and thirdly, the crime number mentioned therein is incorrect, insofar as the crime number mentioned is 332 of 2025, whereas the crime number in the ground case in all three cases is 378 of 2025.

                   10. Having considered the rival contentions, we agree with the petitioners that the statements relied upon by the respondents do not support their case. Firstly, the statements are indeed unsigned and undated. There is hence absolutely no clarity, much less certainty, as to when they were recorded.

                   11. The description of the statements on the top of the page refers to Section 180(3) of the BNSS which corresponds to Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. A statement under Section 161 is recorded in the course of investigation and the provisions of Section 162 stipulate that such a statement is not expected to be signed. That may be so. However, since in the present cases, the respondents seek to draw the benefit of those statements, it is necessary for the statements to have been signed in order to support the conclusion that Pitchaiammal, Nagomi, and Mohan are taking steps to obtain bail in the cases of the respective detenus. In the absence of a signature, these statements cannot be relied upon for this purpose.

                   12. …………

                   13. ……... We hence eschew the statements in toto for the purposes of the present cases. As a sequitur, subjective satisfaction of the Sponsoring Authority that M.Pitchaiammal, Nagomi and Mohan are taking steps to obtain bail, based on the above statements stands vitiated and the argument of the petitioners on this count is accepted.

13. Incidentally, our attention is drawn to an order passed in HCP (MD) N0.369 of 2026 dated 19.06.2026 passed by the co-ordinate Bench sitting at Madurai, wherein an order passed by this Bench in HCP Nos. 2129, 2179 and 2340 of 2025 dated 03.03.2026 was relied upon by that petitioner. The Bench has opined that the order is per incuriam and has rendered the following observations:

                   11. We have carefully gone through the order passed in HCP.Nos. 2129, 2179 and 2340 of 2025 dated 03.03.2026. The Division Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration the bar contained under Section 162 of Cr.P.C., which provides that such statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., need not be signed, proceeded to hold that when such statements are relied upon while passing the detention order, it has to be necessarily signed failing which such statement cannot be relied upon by the Detaining Authority.

                   12. In our considered view, the above finding of the Division Bench is not in line with Sections 161 and 162 of Cr.P.C., / 180 and 181 of BNSS. The provisions of Cr.P.C., / BNSS makes it clear that the Police Officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an investigation and such statement recorded by the Investigation Officer need not be signed by the person, who makes it. Thus, there is a bar provided under Section 162 of Cr.P.C., / 181 of BNSS. An exception cannot be carved out while dealing with a challenge to the detention order. The finding of the Division Bench at Paragraph No.11 of the order runs contrary to the statutory provision and therefore, it has to be necessarily held to be per incuriam.

14. We believe that our order has been misconstrued and has not been understood in proper perspective. It was never the intention of the Bench to conclude that a statement under Section 180(3) of BNSS or Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 should be signed by the deponent, being conscious of the statutory requirement that obviates a necessity of signature on the statements recorded under the aforesaid provisions.

15. Our intention was to state that if at all those statements were sought to be taken advantage of, to buttress the subjective satisfaction of the sponsoring/detaining authority while passing an order under Act 14 of 1982, then it is necessary that the material relied upon by that authority must be seen to emanate from the deponent himself/herself, to be credible.

16. A statement under Section 180(3) of the BNSS or Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. would thus not come to the aid of the sponsoring/detaining authority, and would not contribute credible material that would support his subjective satisfaction.

17. In fact, both Sections 180(3) of BNSS and Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. relate to the examination of witnesses in the course of investigation of a case and such statements would hence be of no avail for the purpose of supporting subjective satisfaction in cases of detention. We, hence, reiterate our view in the present matters as well.

18. In light of the aforesaid discussion, these Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the Detention Orders passed by the second respondent in No.843/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 25.10.2025 (in HCP.No.356 of 2026), No.888/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 31.10.2025 (in HCP.No.13 of 2026), No.887/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 31.10.2025 (in HCP.No.2760 of 2025), No.776/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 09.10.2025 (in HCP.No.2263 of 2025), and No.863/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 27.10.2025 (in HCP.No.2538 of 2025), are hereby set aside. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

19. The detenus, viz., Mahendran, S/o.Subramani, male aged 45 years, Thangeswaran, S/o.Ganesan, male aged 53 years, Bharathi @ Bharathikannan, S/o.Subbaiah, male aged 63 years, all now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, Poonkodi, W/o.Imrankhan, female aged 38 years, now confined in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai and Ramesh, S/o.Kumarasamy, male aged 40 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case.