Madras High Court
E.Logeswari vs State Of Tripura' on 24 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
H.C.P.No.2233 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
H.C.P.No.2233 of 2024
E.Logeswari .. Petitioner
v.
1. State of Tamil Nadu
rep by Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai
4. The Inspector of Police
E-3 Minjur Police Station
Chennai .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records on
the file of the 2nd respondent in No.72/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2233 of 2024
11.06.2024 quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person
or body of the detenu Thiru.Jayakumar @ Bravo, S/o Ellappan, aged 22
years, produce before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty, who is now
detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Jaisingh
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 mother of the detenu viz.,
Jayakumar @ Bravo, S/o Ellappan, aged 22 years, now confined at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the second respondent in
No.72/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 11.06.2024.
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 29.04.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 11.06.2024. 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 No.72/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 11.06.2024 is hereby set aside and the
habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jayakumar @ Bravo, S/o
Ellappan, aged 22 years, now 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.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (N.M.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 24.09.2024
ss
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai
4. The Inspector of Police
E-3 Minjur Police Station
Chennai
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
N.MALA,J.
ss
24.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
