Madras High Court
Bindu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2600 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2600 of 2024
Bindu ... Petitioner/Wife of
the Detenu
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City,
Office of COP,
Avadi, Chennai - 600 054.
3. The Inspector of Police,
T-9, Pattabiram Police Station,
Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison - II,
Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2600 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order in Memo No.144/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 29.08.2024
passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set
aside the same and direct the respondent to Produce the petitioners husband
THIRU.AZEEZ S/O.NAZEER, aged about 36 years the detenue, now
confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the
petitioner's husband THIRU.AZEEZ S/O.NAZEER, aged about 36 years the
detenue herein at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar
For Respondents : Mr. E. Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 29.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus
petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 24.06.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 29.08.2024. 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
there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 2 nd respondent,
BCDFGISSSV No.144 of 2024 dated 29.08.2024, is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Azeez, aged 36
years, S/o. Nazeer confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to
be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other
case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
30.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City,
Office of COP,
Avadi, Chennai - 600 054.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-9, Pattabiram Police Station,
Chennai.
5. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison - II,
Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda
30.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
