Madras High Court
Saroja vs State Of Tripura' on 5 November, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
H.C.P.No.2440 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.2440 of 2024
Saroja
W/o Murugesan .. Petitioner
v.
1. The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. District Collector & District Magistrate
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore
3. The Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Cuddalore-4
5. The Inspector of Police
Neyveli Township Police Station
Cuddalore District .. Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2440 of 2024
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 dated
27.08.2024 in C3/D.O.No.68/2024 against the petitioner's son Eli @
Iyyappan, Male, aged 24 years, S/o Murugesan, who is confined at Central
Prison, Cuddalore 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.P.Raman
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., Eli @
Iyyappan, S/o Murugesan, aged 24 years, now confined at Central Prison,
Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent in C3/D.O.No.68/2024 dated
27.08.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 04.07.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 27.08.2024. 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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, had
quashed the detention order on this ground.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
in C3/D.O.No.68/2024 dated 27.08.2024 is hereby set aside and the habeas
corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Eli @ Iyyappan, S/o Murugesan,
aged 24 years, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore 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 05.11.2024
ss
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore
3. The Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Cuddalore-4
5. The Inspector of Police
Neyveli Township Police Station
Cuddalore District
6. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ss
05.11.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
