Madras High Court
Muniyammal vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 6 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2053 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2053 of 2024
Muniyammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City.
3. The Superintendent of prison, Central prison-II,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire
records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in
No.50/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 20.05.2024 and quash the same and direct
the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's grand son
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2053 of 2024
namely, Lokesh @ Ettaiah, son of Settu, aged abut 24 years detained in
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S. Mohammed Ansar
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 20.05.2024 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 19.03.2024
and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 20.05.2024. This
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second
respondent in No.50/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 20.05.2024 is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Lokesh @
Ettaiah, son of Settu, aged abut 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.]
06.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
asi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
asi
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City.
3. The Superintendent of prison, Central prison-II,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station,
Chennai.
06.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
