Madras High Court
V.Sanjeev vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 5 June, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.703 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.703 of 2024
V.Sanjeev ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
St.George Fort, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.703 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of order of detention
in Cr.M.P.No.38/G/2023 dated 03.11.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent
and quash the same and further direct the respondents to produce the
detenu namely V.Sanjeev, aged about 35 years, S/o.Vengadachalam, before
this Court now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Samivel
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the detenu Sanjeev, aged about 35
years, S/o.Vengadachalam, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
03.11.2023 slapped on him, 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, 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 15.09.2023 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 03.11.2023. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
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
on 03.11.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.38/G/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sanjeev, aged about 35 years,
S/o.Vengadachalam, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
05.06.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
St.George Fort, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
05.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
