Madras High Court
S.Loganathan vs State Of Tripura' on 28 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
H.C.P.No.2499 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2499 of 2024
S.Loganathan .. Petitioner
v.
1. The Chief Secretary to Government of Puducherry
Union of Puducherry
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry
2. The Secretary to Lieutenant Governor
Rajnivas, Puducherry
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Authorised Officer
Office of the District Magistrate
1st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road
Kavundanpalayam, Puducherry 605 009
4. The Superintendent of Police (East)
Puducherry
5. The Chief Superintendent of Jail
Central Prison, Kalapet
Puducherry
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2499 of 2024
6. The Inspector of Police
Odiansalai Police Station
Puducherry .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to
the detention order in No.02/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2024 dated 21.08.2024
passed by the 3rd respondent under the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social
Activities Act, 2008 (Act 10 of 2010) and set aside the same and direct the
respondents to produce the petitioner's son Karthi @ Karthikeyan S/o.
Loganathan, aged about 27 years, the detenu, now confined in Central
Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.U.Yuvaraj
For Respondents :: Mr.K.S.Mohandass
Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu, viz., Karthi @
Karthikeyan, S/o Loganathan, aged 27 years, now confined at Central
Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the third respondent in
No.02/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2024 dated 21.08.2024.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) 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.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 30.05.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 21.08.2024. This fact is
not disputed by the learned 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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 third respondent in
No.02/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2024 dated 21.08.2024 is hereby set aside and
the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Karthi @
Karthikeyan, S/o Loganathan, aged 27 years, now confined at Central
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry 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 28.10.2024
ss
To
1. The Chief Secretary to Government of Puducherry
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry
2. The Secretary to Lieutenant Governor
Rajnivas, Puducherry
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Authorised Officer
Office of the District Magistrate
1st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road
Kavundanpalayam, Puducherry 605 009
4. The Superintendent of Police (East)
Puducherry
5. The Chief Superintendent of Jail
Central Prison, Kalapet
Puducherry
6. The Inspector of Police
Odiansalai Police Station
Puducherry
7. The Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry)
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
ss
28.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
