Preventive detention invalid without material basis for bail apprehension and proximate link via dated reports.

ORDER :

1. Their relatives have approached this Court challenging the orders of detention.

2. The common point put forth by Mr. Mohamed Saifulla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority to the effect that detenus might be enlarged on bail, has no basis.

3. Mr. Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for his part, would defend the orders of detention.

4. On a perusal of the impugned orders, we find that one of the grounds taken by the sponsoring authority, that has been reiterated by the detaining authority is that the relatives of the detenus are taking steps to enlarge them on bail by filing bail applications.

5. We have sought from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the available material to support such a subjective satisfaction and find no such material on record. We have also perused the booklets filed and do not find any statements recorded from the relatives to support his apprehension. Hence, and in the absence of any material including statements, the subjective satisfaction of the authorities that the detenus would be enlarged on bail has no basis whatsoever.

6. That apart, the Special Report of the police authorities which is placed at page nos. 97 and 98 of Vol I of the booklet is undated. It is unknown as to, on what date the Report was generated, and on what date it was transmitted to the authorities.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, 2022 Live Law (SC) 813 has reiterated the necessity for a proximate link between all stages of the investigation leading to the detention, to establish the justification for the detention. In the present case, the non-dating of the Special Report, that is one of the important basis for the order of detention, would cast a cloud on the link between the Special Report and the detention, also vitiating the impugned order.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, these Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the Detention Orders passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No.93/2025, dated 13.08.2025, BBCDEFGISSSV No.90/2025, dated 13.08.2025, BBCDEFGISSSV No.91/2025, dated 13.08.2025, BBCDEFGISSSV No.92/2025, dated 13.08.2025 and BBCDEFGISSSV No.109/2025, dated 31.08.2025 are set aside.

9. The detenus, viz. L. Premkumar S/o Loganathan, R. Balaji, S/o Ramesh, S. Ashik, S/o Sainsha and A. Shaninsha, S/o Akbar, confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and D. Sagayaraj, S/o Dhaveedhu, who is now confined in Central Prison - Puzhal-II, Puzhal, Chennai are hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case.