Madras High Court
V.Kalyani vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 28 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2210 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2210 of 2024
V.Kalyani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu Represented by
The Principal Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section),
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
AWPS Valasaravakkam Police Station,
Valasaravakkam,
Chennai – 600 087. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2210 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India To
issue a writ, order or direction or any other writ in the nature of Habeas
Corpus petition calling for the records relating to the impugned order of
detention dated 05.07.2024 in 761/BCDFGISSSV/2024 passed by the 2nd
respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to produce the detenu Murugan @ Murugesan, S/o.Velsamy,
now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this hon'ble Court and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : M/s.K.Prasanthan
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
No.761/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 05.07.2024 is sought to be quashed in
the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.There is a delay in passing detention order, more so, there is only
one adverse case has been relied on for the purpose of issuing the
impugned order of detention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an
inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
5.In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 30.05.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 05.07.2024. This fact
is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
6.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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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.”
7.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
8. 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.
9. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
in No.761/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 05.07.2024, is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,Murugan @
Murugesan, S/o.Velsamy, aged about 27 years, now confined in 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.]
28.10.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ep
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ep
To
The Principal Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section),
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
AWPS Valasaravakkam Police Station,
Valasaravakkam,
Chennai – 600 087.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
