Detention order quashed for non-application of mind on bail possibility based on unsigned statement.

For Petitioner : Ms.N.Dimple Sharma for Mr.A.Nirmal Kumar Sharma For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John ORDER (Made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)

The brother of detenu has filed this petition seeking to quash detention order dated 02.08.2025, who has been labelled as “Sexual Offender” under section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (in short ‘Act’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. Though several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for petitioner, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regard the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail suffers from non-application of mind.

4. The detenu was arrested in connection with Cr.No.25 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 7 and 8, 11(i), 11(iv) r/w 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Admittedly, he had not filed any bail application. The detaining authority’s conclusion that the detenu is likely to file bail application is based on the special report of the sponsoring authority which in turn relies on an unsigned statement said to have been made by the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu. In HCP.No.1684 of 2025, we have held that though the statement is purported to have been recorded under Section 180(3) of BNSS and a Section 180(3) BNSS statement need not be signed, the said statement cannot be the basis for arriving at such a conclusion as the statement was not recorded during the course of the investigation. The sponsoring authority ought to have obtained a signed statement from the relative of the detenu to satisfy the detaining authority regarding the real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail. Since there is no signed statement of a relative informing that the detenu is taking steps to file bail application, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is without any basis. Hence, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

5. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.530/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 02.08.2025 is set aside.

6. The detenu, viz., Sundarraj, S/o. Annamalai, aged 52 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.