Madras High Court
Jeevitha vs The State Represented By Its on 19 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2474 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2474 of 2024
Jeevitha ... Petitioner/Wife of the
Detenu
Vs.
1. The State represented by its,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its,
The Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station,
Chennai District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2474 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in detention order
passed in No.858/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 17.08.2024 on the file of the
2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein
to produce the body or person of petitioner's husband Thiru.Joseph @
Dinesh @ Manda Dinesh M/A 25 years now confined in Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Padmanabhan
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
17.08.2024 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 15.06.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 17.08.2024. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 No.858/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 17.08.2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Joseph @ Dinesh @ Manda Dinesh, aged 25 years, S/o. Chinnappan
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.]
19.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station,
Chennai District.
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
19.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
