Madras High Court
Firdhouse Fathima vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 January, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.3037 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.3037 of 2024
Firdhouse Fathima ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Reep. By the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Law and order,
B-1, North Beach Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records from the 2 nd
respondent in connection with order No.1107/BCDFGISSV/2024 dated
06.11.2024 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's husband
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.3037 of 2024
namely, Jaffer Sadiq, S/o.Mohammed Hassan aged 29 years, now confined
in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982
before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Nadhiya
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings
No.1107/BCDFGISSV/2024 dated 06.11.2024 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. One adverse case has been relied on along with the ground case
for invoking Act 14 of 1982. The adverse case was registered in Crime
No.34 of 2019 has no proximity with the ground case. The ground case can
be dealt with by the authorities by ordinary law in force.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.1. Another ground relied by 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 04.10.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 06.11.2024. 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 (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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. We do not find any reason to confirm the order of detntion.
Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent in
No.1107/BCDFGISSV/2024 dated 06.11.2024, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Jaffer Sadiq,
S/o.Mohammed Hassan aged 29 years, now confined in Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
06.01.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gd
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Reep. By the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Law and order,
B-1, North Beach Police Station,
Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and Order),
Fort ST.George, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
06.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
