Madras High Court
Arulmani V vs State Of Tripura' on 23 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
H.C.P.No.2213 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
H.C.P.No.2213 of 2024
Arulmani V
W/o Velliyangiri .. Petitioner
v.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector
Office of District Collector, Erode District
3. The Superintendent of Police
Erode, Erode District
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison
Central Prison, Coimbatore District
5. The Inspector of Police
Malayampalayam Police Station
Erode District .. Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2213 of 2024
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records
pertaining to the detention order in Cr.M.P.No.36/Goonda/2024 C1 dated
20.07.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct
the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu by name
Velliyangiri, wife of petitioner herein aged 35 years, presently at Central
Prison, Coimbatore before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner :: Mr.B.Mohan
For Respondents :: Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz., Velliyangiri,
S/o Murugesan, aged 35 years, now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore,
has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed
by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.36/Goonda/2024 C1 dated
20.07.2024.
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 surrendered before the Court on
29.05.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on
20.07.2024. 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
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 (Crl.) 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 Cr.M.P.No.36/Goonda/2024 C1 dated 20.07.2024 is hereby set aside and
the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Velliyangiri, S/o
Murugesan, aged 35 years, now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in
connection with any other case.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (N.M.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 23.09.2024
ss
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector
Office of District Collector, Erode District
3. The Superintendent of Police
Erode, Erode District
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison
Central Prison, Coimbatore District
5. The Inspector of Police
Malayampalayam Police Station
Erode District
6. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
N.MALA,J.
ss
23.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
