Madras High Court
Monisha vs The Secretary To Government on 16 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1324 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.1324 of 2024
Monisha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirupathur District, Tirupathur – 635 601.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tirupathur District, Tirupathur – 1.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore -2.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Kurisilapet Police Station,
Tirupathur District. ... Respondents
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 connection
with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1324 of 2024
17.05.2024 C3/D.NO.24/2024 against the petitioner husband Dhamu alias
Venkatesan, male aged 34 yeara s/o. Kannan, who is confined at Central
Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce
the detenue before the Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
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., Dhamu alias
Venkatesan, male aged 34 yeara s/o. Kannan, who is confined at Central
Prison, Vellore, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent inC3/D.NO.24/2024
dated 17.05.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an
inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 13.04.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 17.05.2024. 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:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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',
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
in C3/D.NO.24/2024 dated 17.05.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Dhamu alias Venkatesan, male
aged 34 yeara s/o. Kannan, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore, 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
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
gd
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirupathur District, Tirupathur – 635 601.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tirupathur District, Tirupathur – 1.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore -2.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Kurisilapet Police Station,
Tirupathur District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
16.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
