Madras High Court
Mrs.Sumathi vs State Of Tripura' on 4 November, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
H.C.P.No.2584 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.2584 of 2024
Mrs.Sumathi
W/o Sankar .. Petitioner
v.
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Chennai City
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police
S-7, Madipakkam Police Station
Chennai .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in
connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2584 of 2024
dated 19.09.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.967/2024 against the petitioner's son
Thiru.Dhilip, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Sankar, who is confined at
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Illiyas
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu, viz., Dhilip,
S/o Sankar, aged 30 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai,
has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed
by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.967/2024 dated 19.09.2024.
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 24.07.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 19.09.2024. 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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, 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
in BCDFGISSSV No.967/2024 dated 19.09.2024 is hereby set aside and the
habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Dhilip, S/o Sankar, aged
30 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be
set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection
with any other case.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 04.11.2024
ss
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Chennai City
Chennai 600 007
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police
S-7, Madipakkam Police Station
Chennai
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ss
04.11.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
