Madras High Court
Deepika vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.1473 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1473 of 2023
Deepika ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by the Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruppur District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.1473 of 2023
5.The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station,
Dharapuram Unit,
Tiruppur District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the
records relating to the Detention Order vide Cr.M.P.No.28/DRUG
OFFENDER/2023 dated 20.07.2023, passed by the second respondent and
quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's
husband namely Tamilselvan, S/o.Sekar, aged 25 years, (who is presently
under going detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore), before this Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Arun Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by
Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
The petitioner, wife of detenu Tamilselvan, aged about 25 years,
S/o. Sekar, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 20.07.2023 slapped on her
husband, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and 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 a delay in passing the order
of detention.
4. In the instant case, admittedly, the detenu was arrested on
17.04.2023 and the detention order was passed on 20.07.2023. In a similar
case, where there was a delay in passing the detention order on 18.06.2022
after the arrest of the detenu on 08.04.2022, this Court in HCP No.1388 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2022 [Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332], held as follows:
“6.... As between 08.04.2022 and 18.06.2022, it is well over two
months and given the facts and circumstances of the instant case, particularly
ground and the adverse cases, we find that this live and proximate link between
grounds and purpose of detention had in fact snapped.”
This Court, in the said order, drew inspiration from the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura,
reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813, though in that case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court did not directly deal with the issue of delay in passing the
detention order after the arrest of the detenu. The relevant observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court are 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. In yet another case i.e., in Nagaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428, this Court 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.
Therefore, we are of the view that in view of the unexplained delay in
passing the order of detention after the arrest of the detenu, the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
6. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
2nd respondent dated 20.07.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.28/DRUG OFFENDER/
2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
detenu viz., Tamilselvan, aged about 25 years, S/o. Sekar, is directed to be
set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other
case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
04.01.2024
pvs
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruppur District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station,
Dharapuram Unit,
Tiruppur District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
pvs
04.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
