logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 4844 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : H.C.P. No. 58 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR.(MRS) JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Parties : Arumugam Nanjappa Chettiyar Versus The State Rep. by The Secretary (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S. Manoj Vasanth, Advocate. For the Respondents: C.R. Malarvannan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side).
Date of Judgment : 06-07-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 MHC 2530,
Summary :-
Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982)
- Section 180(3) of the BNSS
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act

Catch Words:
- Habeas Corpus
- Preventive Detention
- Section 2(ggg)
- Section 180(3)
- Quash
- Detention Order

Summary:
The petition under Article 226 challenges a detention order dated 02‑09‑2025 that labels A. Sivakumar as a “sexual offender” under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act. The detaining authority relied on an unsigned statement under Section 180(3) of the BNSS to claim a real possibility of the detainee obtaining bail. The Court held that only a signed statement of a relative can satisfy this requirement and that the unsigned statement cannot be relied upon. Consequently, the satisfaction of the detaining authority was deemed to be without proper application of mind. The Court found the detention order legally untenable and ordered its quash. The petition for habeas corpus was therefore allowed, directing the immediate release of the detainee unless required for another case.

Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the Order of Detention passed by the Second respondent in his proceedings in No.C.No.152/G/IS/2025 dated 02.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenue, namely, Thiru. A.Sivakumar, S/o Arumugam aged 35, as Sexual Offender, now he is confined in Central prison, Coimbatore before this Court and set him at liberty.)

Sunder Mohan, J.

1. The father of the detenu – A.Sivakumar, S/o Arumugam, aged 35 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 02.09.2025, branding him as ‘Sexual Offender’ under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents.

3. 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.

4. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu had filed bail application in C.M.P.No.525 of 2025 before the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Coimbatore, and that the same was dismissed on 19.08.2025. Further, he stated that the father of the detenu is taking steps to file another bail application. The detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been made by the father of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that he is taking steps to file a bail application.

5. 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.

6. 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. Thus, 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. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in C.No.152/G/IS/2025 dated 02.09.2025, is set aside.

8. The detenu, viz., A.Sivakumar, S/o. Arumugam, aged 35 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
 
  CDJLawJournal