A statement recorded under Section 180(3) of the BNSS cannot be the legal basis for a detaining authority to satisfy itself that there is a real possibility of a detenu being released on bail.

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 28.10.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent in C.No.157/TNPD/ACP/2025, and quash the same and produce the detenu, Mahesh, aged about 21 years, S/o.Ravi, before this Court and set him at liberty and the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s): Ms.S.Meeha

For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan,

Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.)

The mother of the detenu – Mahesh, aged 21 years, S/o.Ravi has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 28.10.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the 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. It is seen from the grounds of detention that the detenu is in remand and he had not filed any bail application. However, the detaining authority has relied upon a statement said to have been made by the brother of the detenu, under Section 180(3) of the BNSS that he is taking steps to file a bail application.

5. On 03.03.2026, in HCP Nos. 2129, 2179 and 2340 of 2025, we had held that the unsigned statement cannot be relied upon to infer that the detenu is likely to file bail application. We had reiterated and clarified this view in a subsequent case, i.e., HCP No.2356 of 2025 dated 22.06.2026, after we were informed that our view was held to be per incuriam by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in HCP (MD) N0.369 of 2026 dated 19.06.2026. We have held that only a signed statement of a relative can be relied upon by the detaining authority to satisfy himself as regards the possibility of the detenu filing a bail application and that a Section 180(3) of BNSS statement cannot be the basis for such a satisfaction.

6. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said statement recorded under Section 180(3) of BNSS , by the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is misconceived. Thus, the inference that the detention is warranted since the detenu is likely to indulge in further criminal activities after his release on bail is based on the said wrong premise. Hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.157/TNPD/APC/2025 dated 28.10.2025, is set aside.

8. The detenu, viz., Mahesh, S/o.Ravi, aged 21 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.