Madras High Court
Rajappa vs State Rep. By on 8 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.2048 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.2048 of 2023
Rajappa ... Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep. by:
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariate, Fort St. George, Chennai-9
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Hudco Police Station,
Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2048 of 2023
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 in S.C.No.19/2023 dated 05.09.2023 on the file of the District
Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri, the
second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the
respondent to produce the detenu Madhesh S/o.Rajappa, aged about 23
years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Sengkodi
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, father of the detenu Madhesh, S/o.Rajappa, aged 23
years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the 2nd respondent dated 05.09.2023 slapped on his son, branding
him as "Goonda" 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].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
08.07.2023 and the detention order was passed on 05.09.2023. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
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. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2nd respondent dated 05.09.2023 in S.C.No.19/2023, is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Madhesh,
S/o.Rajappa, aged about 23 years, 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]
08.01.2024
ars
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariate, Fort St. George, Chennai-9
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hudco Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
08.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
