Madras High Court
Mrs.P.Mageswari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By on 9 October, 2023
HCP.No.1074/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 09.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1074/2023
Mrs.P.Mageswari .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by
its Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Home, Prohibition
and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Vepery
Chennai 600 007.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police
H8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station
Chennai. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1074/2023
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the
2nd respondent herein pertaining to the detention order made in
BCDFGISSSV NO.198/2023 dated 30.05.2023 and quash the same and
direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu namely Barath,
aged about 22 years, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
before this Court and set the detenu at liberty forth with.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
(1)The petitioner, mother of the detenu Barath, aged 22 years,
S/o.Parthiban, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.05.2023 slapped
on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention
of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum
Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1074/2023
(2)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
(3)Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for
the petitioner raised the following two grounds. Firstly, the inordinate
and unexplained delay in passing the Detention Order and secondly, the
bail order in the similar case relied on by the Detaining Authority to
arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released
on bail, was obtained during COVID-19 situation. In the present case,
though the detenu was arrested on 24.04.2023, the Detention Order was
passed only on 30.05.2023.
(4)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushantha Kumar Banik Vs.
State of Tripura and Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4715, has dealt
with similar situation and has held in paragraph No.21 as follows:-
''In the present case, the circumstances indicate that the
detaining authority after the receipt of the proposal from the
sponsoring authority was indifferent in passing the order of
detention with greater promptitude. The “live and proximate
link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose of
detention stood snapped in arresting the detenu. More
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1074/2023
importantly the delay has not been explained in any manner
& though this point of delay was specifically raised &
argued before the High Court as evident from Para 14 of the
impugned judgment yet the High Court has not recorded any
finding on the same.”
(5)The Hon'ble Supreme Court was persuaded to allow the Appeal filed
before it mainly on the ground that delay in passing the Order of
Detention from the date of the proposal would snap the ''live and
proximate link'' between prejudicial activities and the purpose of
detention. Therefore, failure on the part of the Detaining Authority in
explaining such delay as in the present case also is a valid ground for
quashing the Detention Order.
(6)Further, a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the
Detaining Authority had relied upon the order of bail in a similar case in
Crl.MP.No.10485/2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai. However, it is seen that the bail order in the similar case was
obtained during COVID-19 situation and the bail was granted with a
specific reference to COVID-19. Is is in the said circumstances, this
Court finds that the subjective satisfaction suffers from non-application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1074/2023
of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Hence, on the above
grounds, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.
(7) In view of the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the 2 nd
respondent dated 30.05.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.198/2023 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Barath,
S/o.Parthiban, aged 22 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith
unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.M, J.]
09.10.2023
AP
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Vepery
Chennai 600 007.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police
H8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station
Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1074/2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
H.C.P.No.1074/2023
09.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
