Madras High Court
Lakshmidevidokaniya vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 20 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2122 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.2122 of 2024
Lakshmidevidokaniya ... Petitioner/mother of the detenue
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Sirupooluvapatti,
Tiruppur – 641 687.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Thirumuruganpoondi Police Station,
Tiruppur – 641 663. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the
detention order in C.NO. 61/D.O. IS/Tiruppur city/2024 dated 07.08.2024 on
the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to
produce the body and pass person of petitioner's son one names Kanhiya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
HCP.No.2122 of 2024
Dokaniya S/o. Arun Kumar Dokaniya aged about 22 years now confined at
Central Prison, Comibatore before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.HSR Advocates and Legal
Consultants
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.NO.
61/D.O. IS/Tiruppur city/2024 dated 07.08.2024 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
inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 11.05.2024 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 07.08.2024. 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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent in
C.NO. 61/D.O. IS/Tiruppur city/2024 dated 07.08.2024, is hereby set aside and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Kanhiya Dokaniya S/o.
Arun Kumar Dokaniya aged about 22 years now confined at Central Prison,
Comibatore 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 Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Sirupooluvapatti,
Tiruppur – 641 687.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Thirumuruganpoondi Police Station,
Tiruppur – 641 663.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and Order),
Fort ST.George, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
20.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
