Madras High Court
Simran vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 9 October, 2023
HCP.No.1091/2023
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.1091/2023
Simran .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
O/o.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Nagapattinam District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Trichirappalli.
5.The Inspector of Police
Velipalayam Police Station,
Nagapattinam District. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1091/2023
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records
connected with the detention order in COC.No.20/2023 dated 05.05.2023
on the file of the respondent No.2, quash the same as illegal and direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's husband
namely Appu @ Jayakumar, aged about 25 years son of Maharajan now
confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at
liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.U.Kathiravan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
(1)The petitioner, wife of the detenu Appu @ Jayakumar, aged 25 years,
S/o.Maharajan, 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 "Bootlegger" 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.1091/2023
(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 where the learned Public Prosecutor had not
objected for grant of bail to the accused therein. In the present case,
though the detenu was arrested on 11.04.2023, the Detention Order was
passed only on 05.05.2023.
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1091/2023
link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose of
detention stood snapped in arresting the detenu. More
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 passed in a similar
case in Crl.MP.No.886/2023 by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1091/2023
the detenu is likely to be released on bail. However, bail was granted to
the accused in the similar case in Crl.MP.No.886/2023 as there was no
objection on the side of the prosecution to release the accused therein on
bail. It is also admitted that there are three adverse cases against the
detenu herein and therefore, it is not likely that the detenu will also be
released on bail. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority suffers from
non-application of mind. 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 05.05.2023 in COC.No.20/2023 is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Appu @
Jayakumar, S/o.Maharajan, aged 25 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1091/2023
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
O/o.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Nagapattinam District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Trichirappalli.
5.The Inspector of Police
Velipalayam Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1091/2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
H.C.P.No.1091/2023
09.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
