Madras High Court
V.Suguna vs The Secretary To Government on 21 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2516 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.2516 of 2024
V.Suguna ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Salavakkam Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in Connection with the
order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 02.09.2024 in
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2516 of 2024
Rc.No.209/2024/M6-D.O.58/2024 against the petitioner's son Kaviyarasan,
S/o.Venkatesan, aged about 23 years, who is confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to
produce the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban
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.209/2024/M6-D.O.58/2024 dated 02.09.2024 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.
3.One adverse case has been relied on relating to NDPS Act. The
detaining authority relied on the bail order dated 24.05.2021 in
Crl.M.P.No.1463 of 2021 which is dissimilar. In the said case Court
granted bail on the ground that even after lapse of sixty days chargesheet
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has not been filed. However, the said circumstances are not in the present
case which resulted in non application of mind on the part of the detaining
authority. The ground case can be dealt with by the Police authorities under
the law of land.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 14.07.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 02.09.2024. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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 Rc.No.209/2024/M6-D.O.58/2024 dated 02.09.2024, is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Kaviyarasan,
S/o.Venkatesan, aged about 23 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.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Salavakkam Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
21.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
