Madras High Court
Nagammal vs State Of Tripura' on 5 November, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
H.C.P.No.2655 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.2655 of 2024
Nagammal
W/o Sathish Kumar .. Petitioner
v.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by Addl.Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai Police
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3. The Inspector of Police
D4 Zam Bazar Police Station
Zambazaar, Chennai
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal-II
Chennai 600 066 .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2655 of 2024
for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to
the detention order passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV
No.383/2024, order dated 17.04.2024 and quash the same and direct the
respondents herein to produce the body or person of the petitioner's brother
namely Ranjith @ Ranjith Kumar, Male, aged 36 years, son of Poyyadhu
before this Hon'ble High Court of Madras, where he is presently undergoing
detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai and he may be set at
liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner :: Mr.K.Vignesh
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The petitioner, who is the sister of the detenu, viz., Ranjith @
Ranjithkumar, S/o Poyyadhu, aged 36 years, now confined at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings
BCDFGISSSV No.383/2024 dated 17.04.2024.
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 05.03.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 17.04.2024. 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 proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.383/2024 dated 17.04.2024 is hereby set
aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ranjith @
Ranjithkumar, S/o Poyyadhu, aged 36 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 05.11.2024
ss
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Addl. Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai Police
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3. The Inspector of Police
D4 Zam Bazar Police Station
Zambazar, Chennai
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal-II
Chennai 600 066
5. 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
