S.Maheswari v. State Of Tamilnadu Represented By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN S.Maheswari ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu Represented by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2. The Commissioner of Police O/o.The Commissioner of police, Salem City, Salem- 636 006.

3. The Superintendent of Prison Central prison, Salem.

4. The Inspector of Police Hasthampatti Police Station, Salem, Tamilnadu- 636 007.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connection with the detention order C.M.P.No. 47/Goonda/Salem City/2025 dt. 20.08.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent on the petitioner's husband namely Selvaboopathi (26/25) S/o.Vincent, 1/139, Mela Alangarathattu, Arockiyapuram, Thoothukudi has been detained and branded as Goonda U/s. 3(1) of the Tamilnadu Act 14/1982 and confined at Central Prison, Salem to set aside the same and to produced him before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.Lal Devasagayam For Respondent(s):

Mr. R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assisted By Mr. M.Sylvester John

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The wife of the detenu - Selvaboopathi, aged 26 years, S/o.Vincent, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 20.08.2025, branding him as 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

2. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 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. The detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been made by the relative of the detenu under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that he is taking steps to file a bail application in the ground case. However, we find that the statement of the said relative is neither dated nor signed. We have in HCP No. 1684 of 2025 vide order dated 01.04.2026, held that, the unsigned statement cannot be relied upon to infer that the detenu is likely to file bail application. 5.Therefore, the reliance placed on the said statement by the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is misconceived. The inference that the detenu would indulge in further criminal activities after his release also is without any basis. Hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.47/Goonda/Salem City/2025 dated 20.08.2025 is set aside.

7. The detenu, viz., Selvaboopathi, aged 26 years, S/o.Vincent, who is now confined in Central Prison, Salem, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 27-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Note: Issue order today.

ars

To

1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2. The Commissioner of Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem - 636 006.

3. The Superintendent Of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

4. The Inspector Of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem District - 636 007.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.

ars 27-04-2026