This is an interim order. It decides nothing about whether the petitioner pressured the crew to sail, whether any offence is made out, or whether the deaths were caused by any act of the petitioner. The FIR investigation continues, the police must still file a counter, and the matter is listed for admission on 11 November 2026.
- Case
- Selvazhagan v. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, N-4 Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Madras
- Decision
- Bench
- V. Lakshminarayanan
- Judgment by
- V. Lakshminarayanan
- Case numbers
- W.P. Crl. No. 2994 of 2026; CNR No. HCMA012710172026
- Outcome
- Interim order in a lunch-motion writ petition: custodial interrogation held prima facie unnecessary; petitioner to present himself to the police daily till 11 November 2026; remand proceedings deferred; matter listed for admission on 11 November 2026.
The decision
The Madras High Court has held that custodial interrogation is prima facie unnecessary for Selvazhagan, the owner of the fishing boat IND-TN-02-MM-2584, after the boat sank with four of its nine crew dead and five still missing. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan passed the interim order on 5 November 2026 in a lunch-motion writ petition moved by the owner, who apprehended coercive police action after a complaint was lodged against him.
The protection is conditional and short-lived. The owner must present himself before the respondent police every day at 10.00 a.m. or 6.00 p.m., or whenever required, for enquiry until 11 November 2026, when the case is posted in the admission list. Remand proceedings are deferred until then, and the police must file a counter affidavit.
The voyage and the sinking
According to the petitioner's account recorded in the order, the boat sailed from the fishing harbour on 29 October 2026 with nine crew members. Selvazhagan, who says he is a permanent resident of Royapuram in Chennai, owns the boat, which bears registration number IND-TN-02-MM-2584.
On 1 November 2026, the Assistant Director of Fisheries directed all boats to return to shore because of a cyclone. The petitioner states that of the 70 boats that had left the harbour, two did not return, one of them his. Complaints were lodged, and the Indian Coast Guard traced the boat in the Bay of Bengal. Of the nine fishermen on board, four were dead and the search was continuing for the remaining five.
The order records the cyclone only as the reason for the recall direction; it does not settle which harbour the boat sailed from or where exactly it sank, and this article does not add those details.
The complaint and the FIR
The petitioner states that the wife of one of the fishermen who lost his life lodged a complaint with the Fishing Harbour Police Station at Washermenpet, and that the police were actively searching for him. It was in that situation that the matter was moved by way of lunch motion.
When the matter was called, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Arun Anbumani, reported that the Fishing Harbour Police Station had registered an FIR in Crime No. 174 of 2026 on 3 November 2026, on the complaint of Parvathi, the wife of Pakkiri Surya. The respondent in the writ petition is the State, represented by the Inspector of Police, N-4 Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai.
What the State told the court
The State's case, as reported by the Additional Public Prosecutor, was that the Fisheries Department had informed boat owners as early as 28 October 2026 that their boats must not venture out. The prosecutor stated that the petitioner had nevertheless pressured the crew to put to sea, and that the petitioner had been called upon to present himself before the police.
The prosecutor further stated that the petitioner was yet to be remanded and was then being enquired into at the Fishing Harbour Police Station. These are submissions made on behalf of the State; the order records them without deciding whether they are correct, and it makes no finding that the petitioner pressured the crew or that any offence is made out.
What the court had to decide
At the interim stage, the court had to decide only whether the owner needed to be taken into custody for interrogation while the facts were still being enquired into. The petitioner had approached the court apprehending coercive action; the State's position was that he was being enquired into and had not been remanded.
The court did not have a counter affidavit from the police before it, and it expressly said one would be required. Its task was therefore to weigh the protection the petitioner sought against the investigation that was plainly still under way, on the material available at a lunch-motion hearing.
Why the court declined custody
Justice Lakshminarayanan held that, as the facts were “more or less clear”, custodial interrogation was prima facie not necessary in this case. The order gives no further reasoning: it does not analyse the ingredients of any offence, and it does not weigh the State's allegation that the owner pressured the crew to sail.
The brevity matters. A prima facie view at the interim stage is a provisional assessment, not a conclusion. That is why the order pairs the protection with a direction that the owner remain available to the police every day, and why it still calls for a counter from the respondent police before the matter is heard for admission.
What happens next
The operative directions are threefold. First, the petitioner must present himself before the respondent police every day at 10.00 a.m. or 6.00 p.m., or whenever he is required, for the purpose of enquiry, until 11 November 2026. Second, the case is posted in the admission list on 11 November 2026. Third, remand proceedings are deferred until then.
Nothing in the order stops the investigation. The FIR remains, the search for the five missing fishermen continues, and the police must answer the petition with a counter affidavit. Whether the writ petition is admitted, and whether any further protection follows, will be decided when the matter is taken up on 11 November.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This order is a good example of interim protection that is narrower than anticipatory bail. The petitioner did not get a declaration that he cannot be arrested; he got a finding that custodial interrogation is not necessary for now, coupled with a daily reporting condition. The condition is the price of the protection: the court keeps the petitioner within reach of the investigation while keeping him out of custody.
Notice also what the court did not do. It did not decide whether the owner pressured the crew, whether sailing after the 28 October warning was itself unlawful, or whether the deaths disclose an offence. Those questions need the police counter and, if the petition is admitted, a full hearing. A lunch-motion order made on the petitioner's account and the prosecutor's oral report cannot carry findings of that kind.
Finally, watch the language. The order never says the police must not “harass” the petitioner, and it never names Kasimedu harbour police. The protection is expressed precisely as “custodial interrogation is not necessary”, and the police station concerned is the Fishing Harbour Police Station, Royapuram (N-4). In court reporting, the exact words of the operative direction are the story; paraphrases that sound stronger than the order are not.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- What did the court actually decide about custodial interrogation, and what condition did it attach to that protection?
- Why does the order say the facts are “more or less clear” yet still call for a counter from the police?
- What remains undecided after this interim order, and what happens on 11 November 2026?
