Madras High Court
Karpagavalli vs State Represented By on 27 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2144 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
H.C.P.No.2144 of 2024
Karpagavalli ... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenu
Vs.
1. State represented by
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Ranipet District,
Ranipet.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Salem.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Ranipet District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
HCP.No.2144 of 2024
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with
the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 02.07.2024 in
B3/D.O.No.45/2024 against the petitioner's husband Manikandan, aged 37
years, S/o. Balan who is confined in Central Prison, Salem and set aside the
detention order and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this
Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Ramanathan
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
02.07.2024 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 16.05.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 02.07.2024. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 proceedings B3/D.O.No.457/2024 dated 02.07.2024 is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Manikandan, aged 37
years, S/o. Balan 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.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
27.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. State represented by
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Ranipet District,
Ranipet.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District.
5. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Salem.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Ranipet District.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
veda
27.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
