IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.01.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

H.C.P.No.2046 of 2025

Muthukumar @ Otta Muthu ... Petitioner

Vs.

State Rep.By :

1. The Principal Secretary to Government,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu,

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police,

Avadi City.

3. The Superintendent of Prison,

Central Prison – II,

Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Inspector of Police (L&O),

T-15, S.R.M.C.Police Station,

Chennai. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 05.03.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent in No.37/BCDFGISSSV/2025 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Muthukumar @ Otta Muthu, S/o.Nagaraj, male, aged about 25 years, now confined at Central Prison -II, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

The petitioner herein, is the detenu viz., Muthukumar @ Otta Muthu, S/o.Nagaraj, male, aged about 25 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 05.03.2025, slapped on him, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. There are two adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case in Crime No.760 of 2024 is for alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 in H.C.P.No.1238 of 2025 quashed the detention order as against the co-accused, which reads as follows :

“The petitioner herein, is the detenu viz. Vicky @ Vignesh, S/o.Vijayakumar, aged about 23 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 07.01.2025, slapped on him, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the statement under 161 Cr.P.C., said to have been made by the detenu's relative before the Sponsoring Authority, is not dated. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a bona fide doubt as to when this statement was obtained from the petitioner's relative. The learned counsel further pointed out that, unless the statement relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority is immediately before the Detention Order, it may not have relevance and hence, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on this undated statement, would vitiate the Detention Order.

4. It is seen from records that the statement