Madras High Court
Mohamed Razeen vs State Of Tripura' on 17 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
H.C.P.No.2495 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2495 of 2024
Mohamed Razeen
S/o Mohamed Ismail .. Petitioner
v.
1. The Union of India rep by
The Joint Secretary to Government
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA Unit)
Central Economic Intelligence Bureau
6th Floor, 'B' Wing, Janpath Bhawan
New Delhi 110 001
2. The Union of India rep by
The Director General
Central Economic Intelligence Bureau
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
6th Floor, 'B' Wing, Janpath Bhawan
New Delhi 110 001
3. The Chairman
COFEPOSA Advisory Board
High Court of Madras, Chennai
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2495 of 2024
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison
Puzhal Central Prison, 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 entire records
pertaining to the order of the 1st respondent in F.No.PD-12002/03/2024-
COFEPOSA dated 13.08.2024 and quash the same as illegal,
unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice as enshrined
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and directing the respondents to
produce the body of the detenu Mohamed Razeen, aged 46, S/o Mohamed
Ismail, now confined in Central Prison-1,Puzhal before this Hon'ble Court
and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.I.Abdul Basith
For Respondents :: Mr.N.Ramesh
Senior Panel Counsel for R1 & R2
Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor for R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The petitioner/detenu, viz., Mohamed Razeen, S/o Mohamed Ismail,
aged 46 years, now confined at Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the first
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent in F.No.PD-12002/03/2024-COFEPOSA dated 13.08.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior
Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 4th respondent.
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 28.06.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 13.08.2024. This fact is
not disputed by the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 & 2.
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,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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 first respondent in
F.No.PD-12002/03/2024-COFEPOSA dated 13.08.2024 is hereby set aside
and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mohamed
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Razeen Mohamed Ismail, S/o Mohamed Ismail, aged 46 years, now confined
at Central Prison-I, 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.) (V.S.G.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 17.10.2024
ss
To
1. The Joint Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA Unit)
Central Economic Intelligence Bureau
6th Floor, 'B' Wing, Janpath Bhawan
New Delhi 110 001
2. The Director General
Central Economic Intelligence Bureau
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
6th Floor, 'B' Wing, Janpath Bhawan
New Delhi 110 001
3. The Chairman
COFEPOSA Advisory Board
High Court of Madras, Chennai
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison
Puzhal Central Prison, Chennai
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
ss
17.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
