Pavithra vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2077 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2077 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 April, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Pavithra vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 21 April, 2026

Author: Anita Sumanth

Bench: Anita Sumanth

2026:MHC:1560 HCP No. 2292 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 2292 of 2025 Pavithra W/o.Prithiviraj, No.2/269, Vettupattam Kuttai, Palladam, Narayanapruam, Tiruppur-641 664.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Magistrate And District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tiruppur-641 604.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur-641 604.

4. The Superintendent Of Prison, Central Prison Coimbatore, Coimbatore-641 018.

5. The Inspector Of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur-641 664.

..Respondent(s)

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a

__________ Page1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ or Direction, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in Cr.M.P.No.68/Goonda/2025 dated 23.08.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of petitioners husband namely Pindi @ Prithiviraj S/o.Thanabalan aged about 23 years detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Honble Court and set him at libety.

For Petitioner(s): MR.R.Rajprabhu

For Respondent(s): Mr. R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted By Mr. M.Sylvester John

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

We have heard Mr.R.Rajprabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by

Mr.Sylvester John, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The wife of the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated

23.08.2025, whereunder the detenu Pindi alias Prithiviraj, S/o. Thanabalan,

aged 23 years, has been branded as a Goonda in terms of Section 2(f) of the

Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (in

short ‘Act’).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order on

various grounds. Firstly, he would submit that the grounds of detention have

__________ Page2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

been supplied to the detenu beyond the stipulated period. Secondly, he would

submit that the statement recorded from the relative is undated and thirdly, the

petitioner has not sought bail and there is no possibility of him being enlarged

on bail and hence reliance on the order passed on 11.04.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.708

of 2023 is incorrect as the facts are distinguishable.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for his part, would point out

that the detenu has been detained only on 24.08.2025 and hence, the service of

the grounds of detention was within time.

5. It is true that though the order of detention has been passed on

23.08.2025, there is an endorsement in the impugned order itself stating that the

detenu has been detained only on 24.08.2025. Section 8 provides for a period

of five days within which the grounds of detention are to be supplied to the

detenu. The period of five days is to be computed ‘from the date of detention’

and hence the period of five days has not been vitiated in the present case. There

is thus no merit in this ground put forth on behalf of the petitioner.

6. However, the satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on the

statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

from the relative of the detenu, which is unsigned. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor repeatedly points to the fact that the statement relied upon by the

detaining authority is one recorded under Section 161 that does not require to

be signed. Hence, according to him, that would suffice for the subjective

satisfaction of the detaining authority. We disagree. There is a difference

__________ Page3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

between a Section 161 statement that requires no signature, and a statement

recorded from a relative paving the way for subjective satisfaction of the

detaining authority, that bail is being obtained for the detenu.

7. If the detaining authority chooses to rely on a statement recorded from

the relatives to form an opinion that the detenu will be enlarged on bail, such a

statement has necessarily to be dated, and signed by the person from whom the

statement is recorded, in support of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining

authority.

8. In most cases, including the present, we find that the statement

recorded from the relative/friend is unsigned, and reliance on Section 161 will

not come to the aid of the authorities in such circumstances. In the present case

too, as the statement is unsigned, no credence is liable to be given to the same.

9. The third point is that the petitioners to whom bail was granted in

Cr.M.P.No.708 of 2023 on 11.04.2025 were not involved in any previous cases,

whereas the detenu in the present case has three adverse cases. Hence, we agree

that comparison with that case reveals non-application of mind on the part of

the detaining authority.

10.In addition, we have considered the case of the co-accused in

HCP.No.1994 of 2025 and found that one of the grounds on which that petition

was allowed was on the same point. Paragraph 9 is extracted below:

‘9. The third point is that the petitioners to whom bail was granted in Cr.M.P.No.708 of 2023 on 11.04.2025 were not involved in any previous cases, whereas the detenu in the

__________ Page4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

present case has three adverse cases. Hence, we agree that comparison with that case reveals non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.’

11. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is

allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in

Cr.M.P.No.68/GOONDA/2025 dated 23.08.2025 is set aside.

12. The detenu, viz., Pindi alias Prithiviraj, S/o. Thanabalan, aged 23

years, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to be set at

liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other

case.

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 21-04-2026 vs Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes Note to Registry: Issue today.

1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Magistrate And District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tiruppur-641 604.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur-641 604.

4. The Superintendent Of Prison, Central Prison Coimbatore, Coimbatore-641 018.