Madras High Court
Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1418 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.1418 of 2024
Gomathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 Government Of Tamil Nadu, rep by its
Additional Secretary, Home, Prohibition And
Excise (XVI) Department
Fort St George, Chennai - 600009.
2 The District Collector And District Magistrate,
Office Of District Collector And District Magistrate
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
3 The Superintendent Of Police,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
4 The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
5 The Inspector Of Police
Cyber Crime Police Station, Cuddalore
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1418 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records in detention in
C3/D.O./43/2024 dated 27.05.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent and
quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of
the petitioner's husband Thiru. Kumaresan, S/o. Murail, Male aged about
33 years, the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this
Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar
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., Kumaresan, S/o.
Murail, Male aged about 33 years, the detenu now confined in Central
Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent in C3/D.O./43/2024 dated
27.05.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. 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 01.04.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 27.05.2024. Another
ground on which, the impugned detention order is assailed is that, page 52
of the typed set of paper is illegible. 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:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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,
had quashed the detention order on this ground.
7. In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu',
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 C3/D.O./43/2024 dated 27.05.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Kumaresan, S/o. Murail,
Male aged about 33 years, the detenu now confined in Central Prison,
Cuddalore, 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.]
16.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd
To
1 Government Of Tamil Nadu, rep by its
Additional Secretary, Home, Prohibition And
Excise (XVI) Department
Fort St George, Chennai - 600009.
2 The District Collector And District Magistrate,
Office Of District Collector And District Magistrate
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
3 The Superintendent Of Police,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
4 The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
5 The Inspector Of Police
Cyber Crime Police Station, Cuddalore
Cuddalore District.
6 The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
16.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
