Madras High Court
Umaranjini vs Government Of Tamilnadu on 17 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2433 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2433 of 2024
Umaranjini ... Petitioner/Wife of the
Detenu
Vs.
1. Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Prohibition and
Excise Department Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police Avadi City,
Avadi Commissioner Office,
Avadi – 600 054.
3. Inspector of Police,
Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Thirumullaivoyal,
Chennai – 600 062.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison Puzhal,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2433 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records culminating in
the passing of the order of detention the petitioner's husband of the defence
under Act 1982 as GOONDAS vide detention order in No.
139/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 21.08.2024 on the file of the second
respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondent herein to produce the body and person of the detenue by name
Mr.Velu S/o. Balakrishnan aged about 36 years before this Court and set at
liberty from the detention now contained at central Prison, Puzhal.
For Petitioner : Mr.A. Vijayasankar
For Respondents : Mr. E. Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 21.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus
petition.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 18.06.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 21.08.2024. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 No.139/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 21.08.2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Velu, aged 36 years, S/o. Balakrishnan 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.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
17.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Principal Secretary Home Prohibition and
Excise Department Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police Avadi City,
Avadi Commissioner Office,
Avadi – 600 054.
4. Inspector of Police,
Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Thirumullaivoyal,
Chennai – 600 062.
5. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison Puzhal,
Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
