ORDER

Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor.

The writ petitioner is the wife of one Sugumaran who is holding the post of Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur. He registered Crime No.471 of 2026 on 24.07.2026 on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Thirumaran. It appears that the said complaint itself is a fall out of a partnership dispute. Saravanan and Jeyasri Ramasamy, partners of a hospital known as “A to Z Speciality Hospital, Thanjavur” were at loggerheads. The case of Saravanan is that Jeyasri Ramasamy set up Thirumaran to foist a false case against him under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He also alleged that the case was not being properly investigated. The Director General of Police, thereupon, issued instructions on 15.08.2026 to transfer the case to CB-CID, Thanjavur which re-registered the case as Crime No.0002 of 2026 on 10.09.2026.

In the meanwhile, the parties, namely Jeyasri and Saravanan buried the hatchet. An unregistered Memorandum of Understanding was entered into on 21.08.2026. This was followed by a registered sale agreement dated 27.08.2026 (Document No.5552 of 2026). As per the agreement, Saravanan was to pay a sum of Rs.24 Crores to Jeyasri towards buy-out of her partnership share. A part of this amount was also paid by Saravanan.

However, following the re-registration of the case by CB-CID, Sarvanan took the line that he was coerced into a settlement and forced to cough up the amount of Rs.5 Crores and agree to pay the remaining amount of Rs.19 Crores. Taking note of this statement, an alteration report was filed by the DSP, CB-CID, Thanjavur. Sugumaran, Inspector of Police, who originally investigated Thirumaran’s complaint was arrested on 09.10.2026.

Sugumaran was remanded to custody. His application for bail was also dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru on 16.10.2026.

Instead of filing bail petition before the Sessions Court or this Court, this HCP has been straight away moved. It is another matter that even if a bail petition had been filed before this Court, it would have come up only before one of us (PMNJ) who is holding the bail roster.

The first question that calls for consideration is whether this Habeas Corpus Petition is maintainable. We had framed this question only because the counsel for the intervenor questioned the maintainability of this petition. This issue is no longer res integra. We need to refer only to two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Gautam Navlakha Vs. National Investigation (2022) 13 SCC 542, it was held as follows :

“80. … If the remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, a habeas corpus petition would indeed lie. Equally, if an order of remand is passed in an absolutely mechanical manner, the person affected can seek the remedy of habeas corpus….”

In V.Senthil Balaji vs. State rep. by Deputy Director and Others (2024) 3 SCC 51, it was held that if the detention can be said to be illegal for not following the statutory mandate, a Writ of Habeas Corpus will lie.

The petitioner has thus crossed the threshold of maintainability. Now, it has to be shown that the petitioner’s husband’s arrest and remand are vitiated by illegality.

The detenu was served with notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 on 09.10.2026. In response thereto, on the very same day, Sugumaran appeared before the CB-CID. After the questioning was over, he was arrested at 05.00 P.M. As rightly contended by Shri Sricharan Rangarajan, the learned Senior Counsel, when a person has complied with the notice issued under Section 35 of BNSS, the noticee cannot be arrested unless the investigating officer records his reasons as to why the arrest is necessary. Section 35(5) of BNSS, 2023 manda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document