Madras High Court
R.Gopi vs State Of Tripura' on 25 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
H.C.P.No.2450 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2450 of 2024
R.Gopi .. Petitioner
v.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City
Office of the Commissioner of Police
(Goondas Section), Tiruvallur
3. The Inspector of Police
M-5 Ennore Police Station
Tiruvallur District
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in
connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2450 of 2024
dated 10.09.2024 in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.151/2024 against the
petitioner's son Venkatesh @ Suruttai Venkatesh, son of Gopi, aged about
30 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.M.Muthuramalingam
For Respondents :: Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu, viz., Venkatesh
@ Suruttai Venkatesh, S/o Gopi, aged 30 years, now confined at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the second respondent in
No.151/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 10.09.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The detaining authority relied on one adverse case registered in
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crime No.22 of 2024 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act. The ground case is registered in Crime No.596 of 2024
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The learned
Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the detenu is involved in
other criminal cases, numbering about 11 and pending. We have perused
the details of those cases furnished before us. Many of the cases are
registered in the year 2017 and some cases are registered in 2018 and 2019.
One case each is registered in 2020, 2021 & 2022. All these cases can be
dealt with under the law of the land. Mere registration of criminal case
would be insufficient to form an opinion that there is a likelihood of breach
of causing public order. As far as the detention order is concerned, one
adverse case and the ground case relating to Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act were considered by the detaining authority.
However, we find that there is an enormous delay in issuing the impugned
order of detention. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on
19.07.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on
10.09.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. 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 unexplained depends on the facts and
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
circumstances of each case.”
5. 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.
6. 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
7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
in No.151/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 10.09.2024 is hereby set aside and the
habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Venkatesh @ Suruttai
Venkatesh, S/o Gopi, aged 30 years, now 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.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (V.S.G.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 25.10.2024
ss
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City
Office of the Commissioner of Police
(Goondas Section), Tiruvallur
3. The Inspector of Police
M-5 Ennore Police Station
Tiruvallur District
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
ss
25.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
