Madras High Court
Chandira vs The Secretary To The Government on 3 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1885 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.1885 of 2024
Chandira ... Petitioner/
Mother of the detenue
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City,
Chennai - 600 054.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison - I, Puzhal,
Chennai - 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
E-3, Minjur Police Station,
Minjur,
Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the
body and person of the detenue Mr.Ajith @ Avuja, aged 24 years, S/o.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1885 of 2024
Elumalai, who is detained in Central Prison I, Puzhal, Chennai, before this
Court and pass an order to call for the records of detention order passed by
the second respondent in No.67/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 11.06.2024
against petitioner's son Mr.Ajith @ Avuja, S/o. Elumalai and set aside the
same and set the detenue at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rafi Babu
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
11.06.2024 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.
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 28.04.2024 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 11.06.2024. This fact is
not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. The detenue has filed a sworn affidavit before this Court. Para.
3 and 4 of the affidavit reads as under:
"3. .....I am a law abiding citizen and I always abide by
the law, I further I undertake that once I am unconfined from the
present incarceration, I will not in any manner get myself
involved in any strained situation nor create any disturbance to
the public. I further undertake that, I will amendment my
behaviors, will act in a dignified manner and will maintain a
good conduct in the society. I further promise that I will lead a
life as a responsible person and I am committed to making
positive changes. I want to be a better person for myself, for my
family and to the society.
4. .....I like to acquire new skills and want to
contribute positively to society upon my release. I want to
reintegrate into society as a batter, responsible and law-abiding
citizen. This includes seeking employment, maintaining healthy
relationships, and contributing positively. I promise that over
time, my actions will demonstrate my sincerity in keeping up the
above promises."
6. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura',
reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', when there was an inordinate delay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
circumstances of each case.”
7. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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 proceedings No.67/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 11.06.2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ajith @ Avuja, S/o.Elumalai, aged 24 years 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.]
03.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. Commissioner of Police,
Avadi City,
Chennai - 600 054.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison - I, Puzhal,
Chennai - 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
E-3, Minjur Police Station,
Minjur,
Thiruvallur District.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
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
03.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
