Madras High Court
Nagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2285 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2285 of 2024
Nagammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District.
Kancheepuram.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Bureau,
Kancheepuram District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison – II,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 063. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2285 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order in RC.No.163/2024/M6-D.O.NO.42/2024 dated
01.08.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the
petitioner's son Thiru.Rajasekar S/o.Muniyandi, aged about 30 years, the
detenue now confined in Central in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai,
before this Hon'ble Court and set the petitioner's son Thiru.Rajasekar
S/o.Muniyandi aged about 30 years the detenue herein at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar
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
RC.No.163/2024/M6-D.O.NO.42/2024 dated 01.08.2024 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 15.06.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 01.08.2024. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 second respondent
in RC.No.163/2024/M6-D.O.NO.42/2024 dated 01.08.2024, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Rajasekar S/o.Muniyandi, aged about 30 years, 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.]
21.10.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ep
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ep
To
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District.
Kancheepuram.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Bureau,
Kancheepuram District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison – II,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 063.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
21.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
