Madras High Court
Usharani vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 21 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2345 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.2345 of 2024
Usharani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Vellore District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
District Jail,
Villupuram.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Ariyoor Police Station,
Vellore. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2345 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the 2nd
Respondent pertaining to the order made in Memo C3/D.O.No.75/2024
dated 04.08.2024 in detaining the detenue under the Tamilnadu Act
14/1982 as a brand of Goonda and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenue the petitioner's son Karthikeyan Son
of Ganesan aged 25 years who is detained at the District Jail, Villupuram
before this Honble court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthick Ramachandran
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
C3/D.O.No.75/2024 dated 04.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in the
present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. 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
3.There is no adverse case against the detenue and based on the
ground case alone the impugned order was passed. The ground case can be
dealt with under the law of land. The ground stated in the impugned order
would be insufficient to invoke Act 14 of 1982.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 16.06.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 27.06.2024. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
in C3/D.O.No.75/2024 dated 04.08.2024, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mr.Karthikeyan
S/o.Ganesan, aged about 25 years, who is detained at District Jail,
Villupuram, 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
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Vellore District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
District Jail,
Villupuram.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Ariyoor Police Station,
Vellore.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
21.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
