Innisai vs The State of Tamilnadu

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE P.MURUGAN
HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011529502026}
Innisai W/o.Sugumaran,
D No.29, Victoria Avenue,
Victoria Nagar, Nanjikotai Road,
Thanjavur.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to
Government, Home Department, Fort St
George, Chennai.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
3. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Central Zone, TVS Toll Gate Road,
Kallukuzhi, Trichy 620020.
4. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by the Superintendent of Police,
CBCID, Regional Branch, Chennai.
5. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBCID Police Station, Thanjavur District.
(Re-numbered Crime No.2/2026.)
__________
Page1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
6. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
TMCH Police Station, Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.417 of 2026)
..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce
the person or body of the detenue, namely Sugumaran, aged about 46 years
S/o.Govindarajan, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith by
declaring his arrest and detention to be illegal, unconstitutional and without
jurisdiction.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan,
Senior Counsel,
for Mr.I.Irulappan
Mr.Prabhakaran
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Christopher,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.K.Sivabalan,
for Intervenor.
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.
2. 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
__________
Page2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
__________
Page3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
Sugumaran was remanded to custody. His application for bail was also
dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru on 16.10.2026.
5. 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.
6. 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.
__________
Page4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
7. 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.
8. 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 mandates that where the noticee complies and continues to
comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence
referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is
of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. The expression “shall not be
arrested” is peremptory and cannot be ignored. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the decision reported in ( 2026) 7 SCC 311 (Satender Kumar Antil vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and Another ) had held as follows:
“24. Section 35(5) of the BNSS, 2023 facilitates the liberty
of a person by imposing an implied prohibition of arrest
when a person complies with a notice issued under Section
35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. This provision reiterates the fact
that any subsequent arrest, being an exception, is warranted
only when a police officer forms an opinion for such an
__________
Page5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
arrest, which he is duty bound to record, in writing, by
furnishing adequate reasons.“
9. It is relevant to note that Sugumaran stands accused of the offences
under Sections 61, 308(2) and 198 BNS, 2023. Section 61 defines “criminal
conspiracy”. Section 198 provides for simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year for public servant disobeying law with intent to cause
injury to any person. Section 308(2) provides for imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years for the offence of extortion. Thus, the case
on hand clearly attracts Section 35(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023. It reads as follows :
“35.When police may arrest without warrant.
(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and
without a warrant, arrest any person-
(a) …
(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible
information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he
has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for
a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to
seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions
are satisfied, namely:-
(i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such
complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed
the said offence;
(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary-(a) to
prevent such person from committing any further offence; or(b) for
proper investigation of the offence; or
__________
Page6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
(c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to
disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or
(d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police
officer; or
(e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court
whenever required cannot be ensured,and the police officer shall record
while making such arrest, his reasons in writing:”
Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is as follows :
“
35.(3)The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a
person is not required under sub-section (1) issue a notice directing
the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or
credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion
exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before
him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.”
The fact that the CB-CID did not arrest Sugumaran in the first instance but
chose to issue notice under Section 35(3) clearly brings the case on hand
under Section 35(5) of BNSS, 2023. At this stage also, the condition
precedent for arrest as laid down in Section 35(1) (corresponding to Section
41 of Cr.Pc) has to be complied with and shall be subject to the same scrutiny
by the Magistrate ( Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 ).
__________
Page7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
10. We wanted the respondents to satisfy us that proper reasons were
recorded for justifying the arrest of Sugumaran when he had duly complied
with the notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023. We place on
record that no material was placed before us to show that the requirement set
out in Section 35(5) was complied with. This alone is more than sufficient to
declare the arrest and remand of Sugumaran as illegal.
11. But we do not stop with this. It has been pleaded in the affidavit
filed in support of this writ petition that the grounds of arrest were not served
on the detenu. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that when this
submission was urged before the learned Trial Magistrate, it was brushed
aside in the following terms :
“ 3.1.This court carefully considered the rival contentions
raised and perused all the records. The contentions regarding non
serving of Grounds of arrest is an objection that too be raised at
the time of remand. On perusal of remand order, nothing noted
that such objection raised. Further, the accused has been remanded
and he is in Judicial custody. It is pertinent to note that in the
remand order, it is specifically mentioned that "Accused wife who
is an advocate is also present". Further, serving the grounds of
arrest is for enabling the accused to know the facts for which he
was arrested. Here the accused who being the Inspector of Police
and his wife, who being an advocate can have an opportunity to
get the knowledge of the grounds of the arrest from the officials.
Hence arguments stating Grounds of arrest not served could not be
countenanced. ”
__________
Page8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
We express our shock and surprise. The prosecution did not claim that the
grounds of arrest had been served. No such finding was recorded by the trial
magistrate. On the other hand, according to the trial magistrate, the fact that
the arrestee is a police officer and that his spouse is a lawyer are
circumstances that justify dispensing with the constitutional requirement. We
remind the officer that Article 21 and 22 are sacrosanct. The interpretation
placed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the said two Articles constitutes the
law of the land. It must be followed in letter and spirit. Certain fundamental
rights are non-negotiable. Even the doctrine of waiver would not apply. Even
recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of
Maharashtra and Anr (2026) 1 SCC 500 , categorically posited that the
mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution is unambiguous and
clear and that therefore, the arrested person must be informed of the grounds
of arrest as soon as they can be.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar  Vs.  State of
Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799 held that if the grounds of arrest have not been
served to the arrestee, then the remand cannot be made and if it is made in
breach of the constitutional mandate under Article 22, all subsequent
proceedings also become illegal.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the grounds
of arrest were in fact served on the detenu. But this appears to be a mere ipse
__________
Page9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
dixit of the law officer. This writ petition was filed on Wednesday. It was
taken up only today. Nothing stopped the respondents from filing a typed set
containing proof of such service. In fact, no such material must be available. If
it had been available, it would have furnished a complete answer to the
submission made on behalf of the detenu before the magistrate court. The
learned Magistrate would have definitely had the entire papers before her. The
bail order is quite detailed. There is no finding that the grounds of arrest were
served on the detenu. On the other hand, the learned Magistrate was at pains
to show that non-service of the grounds of arrest did not make a difference
considering the fact that the applicant is a police officer and his spouse is a
practising lawyer.
14. Respectfully applying the ratio laid down in Vihaan Kumar  Vs. 
State of Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799 and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of
Maharashtra and Anr (2026) 1 SCC 500 , we hold that the arrest and remand
of the petitioner’s husband is a rank violation of the constitutional mandate.
15. Two other thoughts trouble our minds. The case of
Saravanan/intervenor was that Thirumaran’s FIR registered under SC ST Act
was not being impartially investigated. He alleged bias. The Director General
of Police acting on the said allegation, directed the DSP, CB-CID, Thanjavur
to take over the investigation in Crime No.471 of 2026. This transfer order
was made on 15.08.2026. In our country, things move rather slowly. By the
__________
Page10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
time CB-CID re-registered the case as Crime No.2 of 2026, much water had
flown under the bridge. Saravanan settled the matter with his partner-turned
foe. Two agreements were entered into. The second one was registered. He
made a part payment of Rs.5.00 crores. After CB-CID entered the scene,
Saravanan claimed that he was arm-twisted into settling the matter. According
to him, he was threatened with arrest. He also alleged that Rs.5.00 crores
was meant for Sugumaran and his higher-ups. Based on this U-turn, the CB-
CID filed an alteration report on 09.10.2026. Interestingly, all the offences
originally registered against Saravanan and two others were dropped. The
DSP, CB-CID appears to have forgotten that without putting the defacto
complainant on notice, the offences registered under the SC/ST Act could not
have been deleted. Section 15A of the SC/ST Act no doubt talks about the
association of the victim at stages such as bail, discharge, release, parole,
conviction or sentence of an accused. But Section 15A which is a beneficial
provision has to be construed expansively and liberally. No doubt, a penal
statute ought to be construed only strictly. But this principle will not apply to a
benevolent provision or a provision that favours the victim in a penal statute.
Section 15A merely provides for hearing the victim. This is not a provision
that even remotely prejudices the rights of the accused. Without putting
Thirumaran on notice, the DSP, CB-CID could not have on her own deleted
the offences originally registered.
__________
Page11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
16. CB-CID registers FIR based on directions of the head of the
department or the court. It does not receive complaints straightaway. That is
why, even in the month of September, 2026, the FIR number is only 2/26. In
the case on hand, it was the DGP who vide proceedings dated 15.08.2026,
directed CB-CID to investigate the complaint of Thirumaran. The remit of CB-
CID was clear and definite. It could have filed final report holding that
Thirumaran’s complaint was false. Instead, it exonerated the persons
accused in Thirumaran’s complaint and turned the spotlight exclusively on the
original investigating officer. We have our own serious doubts as to whether
an alteration report can switch horses mid-stream. An alteration report is filed
when graver offences appear to have been committed. The offence for which
alteration report is filed must have a direct link with the offence originally
registered. For instance, an FIR may be registered for the offence of attempt
to murder. The injured might die. Then, alteration report is filed for including
the offence of murder. An alteration report is not normally filed for an entirely
different cause of action. The allegation that Sugumaran extorted money from
Saravanan is certainly a different cause of action. Saravanan, the erstwhile
second accused, became the source of an entirely different accusation
against the detenu, concerning different transaction, on different dates, with a
different alleged victim. When such role reversals take place, the prosecution
would do well to start on a clean slate.
__________
Page12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
17. According to Saravanan, the sum of Rs.5.00 crores has been
pocketed by Sugumaran and others. But the petitioner makes a bold claim
before this Court that Jeyasri, the estranged partner of Saravanan would
testify before any court or authority that it is she who is the recipient of Rs.5.00
crores of rupees which sum has been paid in cash/cheques by Saravanan.
18. But we are not concerned with the merits of the matter. We,
therefore, will not be justified in holding that the FIR registered by CB-CID has
to be quashed. That is an independent battle which Sugumaran may have to
wage. Whether the fundamental rights of Sugumaran were breached in the
matter of his arrest and remand is the only point for consideration before us.
No doubt, Sugumaran is a police officer accused of having played
Kattapanchayat. But even such a person deserves due process. When we
apply Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India to grant relief to terrorists,
it would be inequitable to deny the protection of Part III of the Constitution to
police officers who are on the wrong side of the law. To us, the character of
the person and the nature of allegations levelled against him are irrelevant.
We will only see if the litigant has made out a case for our interference.
19. As already mentioned, the writ petition was filed on Wednesday. It
is being taken up only today ie., Friday. The petitioner’s husband is in custody
since 09.10.2026. When it is argued before us that liberty is involved and the
prayer has been made in a Habeas Corpus Petition, we cannot brook any
__________
Page13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
delay. Recently, when two innocent villagers were incarcerated and their bail
petition was wrongly rejected, the Division Bench of this Court to which one of
us was a party (GRSJ) in WP(MD)No.29140 of 2026 exercised the
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
directed the Sessions Judge to hold a special sitting on a Saturday and take
up the bail petition. It was heartening to note that the poor villagers were
granted bail. Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427
was cited. The judgment of this Court began with the following quotation :
“ Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one too many ”.
Shri Sharath Chandran, editor of MLJ and a practising lawyer and an
academic, felt that the remarks of Justice K.Subba Rao when His Lordship
was a Judge of the Madras High Court are even more apposite. A.K.Gopalan
v. the District Magistrate and ors (AIR 1949 Mad 596 ) in ringing terms
declares thus :
“It is the sacred duty of this Court to see that no citizen of this
province, whether he is rich or poor, whether he belongs to this
or that political persuasion, is illegally detained for one minute.”
Since even a minute’s illegal detention cannot be tolerated, we have chosen
to dispose of the matter today itself. No exception can be taken to
expeditious or even immediate disposal of a Habeas Corpus Petition. We
remind ourselves of the following famous words of Lord Denning :
“Whenever one of the Judges takes seat, there is one application
which by long tradition has priority over all others. The counsel
has but to say, ‘My Lord, I have an application which concerns
__________
Page14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
the liberty of the subject’, and forthwith the Judge will put all
other matters aside and hear it.”
20. In the instant case, the CB-CID has not merely supplanted the
original First Information Report, but has also discarded the original
informant’s allegations completely by letting go the primary accused and
substituting them with a new accused on an entirely different factual matrix.
But the CB-CID did not follow due process while dealing with Sugumaran. We
have already pointed out the grave illegalities vitiating his arrest and remand.
21. We, therefore, declare that the petitioner’s husband’s arrest,
detention and subsequent remand are illegal. He shall be released forthwith.
This order shall be instantly complied with by the authorities who are in-charge
of the detenu’s custody. The concerned prison authority as well as the
CB-CID are directed to act on the web-copy and they shall not insist on
production of certified copy of this order. We are not granting bail. On the
other hand, we are directing his unconditional release. We clarify once again
that we have not gone into the merits of the allegation made by the intervenor.
This Habeas Corpus petition is allowed.
(G.R.S.,J.) & (P.M.N.,J.)
23-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SKM
Note : Issue order copy immediately.
__________
Page15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Fort St George, Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police,
Dr Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600004.
3. The Inspector of Police, Central Zone,
TVS Toll Gate Road, Kallukuzhi,
Trichy 620020.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
CBCID, Regional Branch,
Chennai.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBCID Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
Re Numbered Crime No.2/2026.
6. The Inspector of Police,
TMCH Police Station, Thanjavur District.
Crime No.417 of 2026.
7. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Copy to :
The Superintendent,
Sub Jail, Thanjavur.
__________
Page16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
DR.P.MURUGAN, J.
SKM
HCP(MD) No. 1359 of 2026
23-10-2026
__________
Page17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 07:47:07 pm )