Madras High Court
S.Vinitha vs State Rep. By on 20 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2131 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
H.C.P.No.2131 of 2024
S.Vinitha ... Petitioner/wife of the detenue
Vs.
State rep. By
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Salem District,
Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Salem District,
Salem.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Thalaivasal Police Station,
Salem District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
HCP.No.2131 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the the records in
C.M.P.NO.13/BOOTLEGGER/C2/2024 dated 12.08.2024 on the file of the
District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem District and quash the same as
illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Thiru.Sivachandran
S/O.Ramar aged about 36 years now confined at Central Prison, Salem and set
him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Sengkodi
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
C.M.P.NO.13/BOOTLEGGER/C2/2024 dated 12.08.2024 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.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 20.06.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 12.08.2024. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
C.M.P.NO.13/BOOTLEGGER/C2/2024 dated 12.08.2024, is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sivachandran
S/O.Ramar aged about 36 years now confined at Central Prison, Salem is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in
connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [N.S., J.]
20.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
gd
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Salem District,
Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Salem District,
Salem.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Thalaivasal Police Station,
Salem District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and Order),
Fort ST.George, Chennai – 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
20.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
