Madras High Court
Kannagi vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 18 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2469 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.2469 of 2024
Kannagi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 66.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Law and Order,
T-12, Poonamallee Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for records in Detention passed by the
second respondent dated 06.08.2024 in No.123/BCDFGISSSV/2024
against the petitioner's son Arunkumar, Male aged 22 years,
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2469 of 2024
S/o.Murugesan, who is confined at Central Prison Puzhal Chennai and set
aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before
the Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel
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
No.123/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 06.08.2024 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.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 26.06.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 06.08.2024. This fact
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenu, the detention
order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
in No.123/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 06.08.2024, is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Arunkumar, Male
aged 22 years, S/o.Murugesan, who is 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.]
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 Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 66.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Law and Order,
T-12, Poonamallee Police Station,
Chennai.
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
