Madras High Court
M.Latha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1449 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.1449 of 2024
M.Latha ... Petitioner/mother of the detenue
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and
The District Collector,
Karur District,
Karur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Karur District,
Karur.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1449 of 2024
5.The Inspector of Police,
Aravakurichi Circle,
Karur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent made in his proceedings in Detention
Order in Cr.M.P.No.11/2024 dated 14.05.2024 and quash the same and set
the petitioner's son by name “Dharma, S/o.Murugesan aged about 25
years” at liberty from Central Prison Coimbatore/3rd respondent and thus
render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jagadeesh Pandian
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The petitioner herein is the son of the detenu viz., Dharma,
S/o.Murugesan aged about 25 years, now confined at Central Prison
Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.11/2024 dated
14.05.2024
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 21.02.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 14.05.2024. 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) 813', 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
in Cr.M.P.No.11/2024 dated 14.05.2024, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Dharma,
S/o.Murugesan aged about 25 years, now confined at Central Prison
Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
14.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and
The District Collector,
Karur District,
Karur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Karur District,
Karur.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Aravakurichi Circle,
Karur District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14.08.2024
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
