Madras High Court
Vignesh vs The Secretary To Government on 18 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2462 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2462 of 2024
Vignesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI)Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Law and Order,
T-3, Korratur Police Station,
Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for entire records connected with the
detention order in BCDFGISSSV.No.127/2024 dated 14.08.2024 on the
file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same and direct the
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2462 of 2024
Respondents to produce the body and person of petitioner Sibling in law
one named Mr.Manikandan @ Ambattur Mani S/o. Late. Sundarraj aged
about 27 years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court
and set him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings
BCDFGISSSV.No.127/2024 dated 14.08.2024 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an
inordinate delay in passing the order of detention and the two adverse
cases relied by the detaining authority has no proximity with the ground
case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 08.06.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 14.08.2024. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 No. BCDFGISSSV.No.127/2024 dated 14.08.2024, is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Mr.Manikandan @ Ambattur Mani S/o. Late. Sundarraj aged about 27
years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal 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.]
18.10.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI)Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Law and Order,
T-3, Korratur Police Station,
Thiruvallur District.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and Order),
Fort ST.George, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
18.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
