Srinath Reddy v. State Rep.By, The Superintendent Of Central Prisons,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Srinath Reddy S/o. Chinna Reddappa Reddy, Door No.2071, Tower -2, Prestige DownTown Apartments, KK Nagar, Chennai - 600 078.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State Rep.by, The Superintendent of Central Prisons, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

2. State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Delta -1, Cyber Crime Police Station, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Egmore, Chennai -08, Cr.No.53 of 2025.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Revision filed under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.12020 of 2025 dated 12.01.2026 in Cr.No.53 of 2025 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Delta -1, Cyber Crime Police Station, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Vivekananthan For Respondent(s):

MR.R.VINOTHRAJA GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE(CRIMINAL SIDE) FOR R1 AND R2

ORDER

The Revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's application filed under Rule 804 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules to recommend him as 'A' class prisoner.

2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime.No.53 of 2025 registered for offence under Sections 318(4), 316(2) of BNSS and he was arrested on 13.11.2025. He applied for classifying him as 'A' class prisoner before the learned Magistrate which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

3. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said prayer on the ground that the petitioner cannot be classified as 'A' class prisoner only because he holds a degree; and that there are serious allegations against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate ought not to have held that holding a degree alone is not sufficient to classify him as class 'A' prisoner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has been detained under Act 14 of 1982.

6. It is needless to state that if the petitioner is detained under Act 14, classification of the petitioner as 'A' class prisoner would not arise. However, if the detention order is quashed, then the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application before the Trial Court seeking 'A' class classification. On filing of such application, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.2804 of 2025 dated 08.01.2026.

7. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

23-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GSK

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

GSK To

1. The Superintendent of Central Prisons, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

2. The Inspector of Police, Delta -1, Cyber Crime Police Station, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Egmore, Chennai -08.

3. XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

23-02-2026