Madras High Court
Sundari vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1762 of 2024
fIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1762 of 2024
Sundari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 66.
4.The Inspector of Police, (Crime)
V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with
the order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 11.03.2024
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1762 of 2024
in Memo No.173/BCDFGISSSV/2024 against the Petitioner's Son namely
Tinku @ Balaji, Male aged 24 years, S/o.Kannan, who is confined at
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenue before the Hon'ble Court and set him
at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu Tinku @
Balaji, aged about 24 years, S/o.Kannan, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 11.03.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "GOONDA" under
the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber
Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and
Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in
passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 23.01.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 11.03.2024. This fact
is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura',
reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1762', when there was an inordinate
delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and
likewise, between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between
the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the
detenu. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is
extracted hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above
decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if
there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of
detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same
manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the
order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained
throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the
requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in
passing the detention order and consequently render the
detention order bad and invalid because the “live and
proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the
purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A
question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands
unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each
case.”
6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar
Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gomathi
Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others', reported in '2023
SCC OnLine Mad 6332', had held that when there is an inordinate delay
from the date of arrest/date of proposal till the order of detention, the live
and proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had quashed the detention order on this ground.
7.In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu',
reported in '(2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428', this Court had held that the delay
of 36 days in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu
would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose
of detention. Hence, in view of the unexplained and inordinate delay in
passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenu, the detention
order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
on 11.03.2024 in No.173/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Tinku @ Balaji, aged
about 24 years, S/o.Kannan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith,
unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
01.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Tsg
Note:-Registry shall forthwith return the booklet
containing the materials, on which, the
Detaining Authority has placed reliance,
to the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner
with due acknowledgment.
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 66.
4.The Inspector of Police, (Crime)
V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station,
Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Tsg
01.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
