Madras High Court
Muthazhagi vs State Of Tripura' on 7 January, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
H.C.P.No.3183 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.3183 of 2024
Muthazhagi
W/o Siva .. Petitioner
v.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. District Collector and District Magistrate
Nagapattinam District
3. The Superintendent of Police
Nagapattinam District
4. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli
5. The Circle Inspector of Police
Kilvelur Circle Police Station
Nagapattinam District .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.3183 of 2024
for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to
the detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order
made in C.O.C.No.36/2024 dated 21.11.2024 in detaining the detenu under
2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Bootlegger and quash the same and
direct the respondents to produce the detenu Siva, S/o Ramesh, aged about
29 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this
Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.)
The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, viz., Siva, S/o Ramesh,
aged 29 years, now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings C.O.C.No.36/2024 dated 21.11.2024.
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 19.10.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 21.11.2024. 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
in proceedings C.O.C.No.36/2024 dated 21.11.2024 is hereby set aside and
the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Siva, S/o Ramesh,
aged 29 years, now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappallai is directed
to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in
connection with any other case.
Index : yes/no (S.M.S.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 07.01.2025
gd
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. District Collector and District Magistrate
Nagapattinam District
3. The Superintendent of Police
Nagapattinam District
4. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli
5. The Circle Inspector of Police
Kilvelur Circle Police Station
Nagapattinam District
6. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
gd
07.01.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
