Madras High Court
Ram Sevak Kamat vs State Of Tamilnadu on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1428 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.1428 of 2024
Ram Sevak Kamat ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Govt.,
Home, Prohibition and Exercise Dept.,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Tiruppur City.
3.Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
4.Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Police Station,
Tiruppur City. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for records in connection with the
order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent made in his order
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1428 of 2024
C.No.27/C.L.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2024 dated on 16.04.2024 against the
Petitioner's son Roshan Kumar S/o.Ram Sevak Kamat aged about 23
years who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, under Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982 as CYBER LAW OFFENDER and to quash the sane and
direct the respondents to produce the detenue Roshan Kumar S/o.Ram
Sevak Kamat aged about 23 years before this Hon'ble Court and set him
at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thinesh
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu Roshan
Kumar, aged about 23 years, S/o.Ram Sevak Kamat, has come forward
with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 16.04.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as
"CYBER LAW OFFENDER" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand
Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
[Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
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 06.02.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 16.04.2024. 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) 1428', 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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,
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 16.04.2024 in C.No.27/C.L.O./IS/Tiruppur City/2024, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu
Roshan Kumar, aged about 23 years, S/o.Ram Sevak Kamat, is directed
to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in
connection with any other case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
01.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
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.State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Govt.,
Home, Prohibition and Exercise Dept.,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
Tiruppur City.
3.Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
4.Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Police Station,
Tiruppur City.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tsg
01.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
