Madras High Court
Niraimathi vs The Secretary To The Government on 14 February, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.156 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
H.C.P.No.156 of 2025
Niraimathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Thiruvarur District
Thiruvarur
3.The Superintendent of Police
O/o. Superintendent of Police
Thiruvarur District
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison Trichy
Trichy District
5.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvarur Town Police Station,
Thiruvarur District ... Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.156 of 2025
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 No.C.O.C.No.46/2024 on 24.10.2024 on the file of the
respondent No.2 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce
the petitioner's husband one named ARUNKUMAR S/o.MUTHU, aged
about 26 years now confined at Central Prison, Trichy before this Court
and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.M.Sylvestor John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu Arunkumar, aged
about 26 years, S/o.Muthu, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.10.2024
slapped on her husband, 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
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 detenu was arrested on 21.10.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 24.10.2024. 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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.”
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',
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
on 24.10.2024 in C.O.C.No.46 of 2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Arunkumar, aged about 26
years, S/o.Muthu, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]
14.02.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
kas
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Thiruvarur District
Thiruvarur
3.The Superintendent of Police
O/o. Superintendent of Police
Thiruvarur District
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison Trichy
Trichy District
5.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvarur Town Police Station,
Thiruvarur District
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
14.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
