A detention order is invalid if it suffers from non-application of mind, particularly when findings on the likelihood of bail are unsupported by evidence, or when critical documents like Special Reports are undated, thereby lacking necessary credibility.

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

In HCP.No.304 of 2026, one V.Balaji, aged 29 years, S/o Velmurugan, has suffered an order of detention dated 03.09.2025 and his mother has approached this Court seeking to set aside the detention order.

2.In HCP.No.313 of 2026, one J.Jesudoss, aged 28 years, S/o Jesu Anthony, has suffered an order of detention dated 03.09.2025 and his mother has approached this Court seeking to set aside the detention order.

3.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised two grounds as against the impugned orders of detention. Firstly, he points out that the Special Reports that form an important basis for the grounds of detention, are not even dated. Secondly, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenus may be enlarged on bail is incorrect.

4.We have heard both learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (criminal side) for the respondents.

5.We have perused the Special Reports which are placed at page 79 of the booklets furnished. As rightly pointed out, we find the same undated. Insofar as the Special Report is one of the important documents, based on which the decision to detain the petitioner has been taken, the same ought to have been dated, to establish credibility. The absence of even basic details such as a date, vitiates the same.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is incorrect. The detaining authority proceeds on the basis that there is imminent possibility of the relatives of the detenus obtaining bail. How he arrives at such a conclusion is a mystery, as no statement has been recorded from the relatives of the detenus. Hence non-application of mind is writ large in the matter.

7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, these Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No.113/2025 and BBCDEFGISSSV No.114/2025, both dated 03.09.2025 are set aside.

8. The detenus, viz., V.Balaji, S/o. Velmurugan, aged 29 years, and J.Jesudoss, S/o.Jesu Anthony, aged 28 years, who are now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case.

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.)

08-06-2026 sl Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note to Registry: Issue Today.

To