(Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the Impugned order in No.233/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 30.04.2025 on the file of Second Respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and Direct to the Respondents to produce the detenue Sanjay @ Noor Son of Ranjan aged about 23 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon’ble Court and set him at Liberty.)

Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.

1. We have heard Mr.P.Iyappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The challenge is to an order of detention dated 30.04.2025, whereunder the detenu Sanjay @ Noor, male aged 23 years, S/o.Ranjan, has been branded as a Goonda in terms of Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’).

3. Prior to the passing of the order of detention, the detenu was arrested on 08.04.2025. The charges levelled in the ground case are 126(2), 296(b), 115, 125, 309(4), 311 and 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would primarily rest his argument on the position that in the booklet furnished to the detenu, the date of supply of the grounds of detention is mentioned as 03.04.2025, which is even prior to the date of arrest.

5. Mr.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would explain stating that the date has been wrongly mentioned as ‘03’ and ought to read ‘30’.

6. We are not inclined to brush away the date as being a mere typographical error. The impugned order has the serious consequence of detaining the detenu since 08.04.2025, close to one year and the fact that in several pages of the booklet, the date is mentioned as ‘03’ would militate against the argument that it is a mere typographical error.

7. Had the date been ‘03’ in one page, the other pages stating ‘30’, it might have been possible to accept the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. However, since every page in the booklet contains the date of service as ‘03’, it has evidently been served only on that date.

8. Section 8 of the Act stipulates that the grounds of detention must be supplied to the detenu within 5 days of arrest. In the present case, the date of arrest is 08.04.2025 and hence the grounds ought to have been supplied to the detenu on or before 13.04.2025. In a situation where the date of service is anterior to the date of arrest, it is evident that there has been no compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 8 of the Act.

9. In such circumstances, we accept the argument of the petitioner to the effect that there is gross violation of the procedure set out under the Act and the grounds of detention have not been supplied within the time stipulated under Section 8 of the Act.

10. The other argument taken by the petitioner is that no bail application has been moved by the detenu or his relative and there is no material on the basis of which, such apprehension of the detaining authority is based.

11. On this argument too, we concur. The statement stated to be of the relative at page 37 of the booklet, is unsigned and hence there is nothing to support the satisfaction of the detaining authority that there are efforts on-going to secure bail for the detenu.

12. The above statement is avowedly recorded under Section 180(3) of the BNSS and it is the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that it does not require to be signed.

13. However, if at all the authority wishes to rely on the statement, such statement would necessarily have to be signed by the relative to support the apprehension of the authority.

14. 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.

15. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.233/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 30.04.2025 is hereby set aside.

16. The detenu, viz., Sanjay @ Noor, S/o.Ranjan, male aged 23 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.