Madras High Court
P.Jothika vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 February, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.2992 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
H.C.P.No.2992 of 2024
P.Jothika ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariate
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Preventive Detention Officer
Tiruppur City Police
Tiruppur District
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Coimbatore 641 018
4.The Inspector of Police (L & O)
South Police Station
Tiruppur City
(Crime No.408 of 2024)
Tiruppur District ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2992 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the
body of the detenu by name Prakashraj @ Prasanth, Son of Ganapathi,
aged 26 years, presently confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith, after calling for the records
pertaining to the detention order dated 29.08.2024 in C.No68/G/IS/
Tiruppur City/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent, ad quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.T.Vishnu
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 viz. Prakashraj
@ Prasanth, S/o.Ganapathi, aged about 26 years, has come forward with
this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 29.08.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as
"GOONDA" 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 02.07.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 29.08.2024. 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.
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 (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 29.08.2024 in C.No.68/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2024, is hereby set aside
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Prakashraj @
Prasanth, S/o.Ganapathi, aged about 26 years, 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.]
17.02.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
kas
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariate
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Preventive Detention Officer
Tiruppur City Police
Tiruppur District
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Coimbatore 641 018
4.The Inspector of Police (L & O)
South Police Station
Tiruppur City
(Crime No.408 of 2024)
Tiruppur District
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
17.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
