Madras High Court
Prashanthy vs The State Rep By on 1 April, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP No. 211 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
HCP No. 211 of 2025
PRASHANTHY
W/.Pradeep, No.21/44, Kandigai Street,
Tvs Nagar, Korattur, Chennai District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By
The Secretary To The Govt, Home,
Prohibition And Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai, Chennai
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Chennai
4.The Inspector Of Police
Ayanavaram Police Station, Chennai
Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
HCP No. 211 of 2025
PRAYER
To call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the
2nd respondent dated 28/12/2024 in Memo No.1293/BCDFGISSSV/2024
against the petitioner Husband Pradeep M/38 yrs S/o.Baskar who is confined at
Central Prison Puzhal Chennai and set aside the same and consequently direct
the respondents to produce the detenue before the Honble Court and set him at
Liberty
For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Saranraj
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The petitioner, who is the husband of the detenu viz., Pradeep S/o.Baskar,
aged about 38 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 28.12.2024 branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil
Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders,
Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand
Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
[Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
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.
4. In the instant case, the detenue was arrested on 13.11.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 28.12.2024. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
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 (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 ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on
28.12.2024 in No.1293/BCDFGISSSv.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Pradeep S/o.Baskar, aged about 38
years, 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.
(M.S.RAMESH J.) (N.SENTHILKUMAR J.)
01-04-2025
ASI
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
To
1. The Secretary To The Govt, Home,
Prohibition And Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai, Chennai
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Chennai
4.The Inspector Of Police
Ayanavaram Police Station, Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
M.S.RAMESH J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR J.
ASI
01-04-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:30:54 pm )
