Madras High Court
Jeeva vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 March, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.2380 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.2380 of 2023
Jeeva ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and Magistrate,
Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli,
Tiruchirapalli District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Kudavasal Police Station,
Thiruvarur District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2380 of 2023
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the detention
28.10.2023 in detention order No.C.O.C. No.58/2023, on the file of the
Second Respondent herein, and quash the same and direct the respondents
herein to produce the body and person of the detenu Karthikeyan, Son of
Gurumoorthy, Hindu, aged about 34 years who is now confined in Central
Prison, Thiruchirapalli before the Hon'ble Court, and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Thamarai Selvan
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 wife of the detenu Karthikeyan,
aged about 34 years, S/o.Gurumoorthy, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
28.10.2023 slapped on her husband, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
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 07.09.2023 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 28.10.2023. 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 28.10.2023 in C.O.C.No.58/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Karthikeyan, aged about 34
years, S/o.Gurumoorthy, 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]
06.03.2024
Index: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
bga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and Magistrate,
Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli,
Tiruchirapalli District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Kudavasal Police Station,
Thiruvarur District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
7. The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
bga
06.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
