Madras High Court
Ramesh vs State Of Tripura' on 21 January, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
H.C.P.No.3213 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.3213 of 2024
Ramesh
S/o Parasuram .. Petitioner
v.
1. The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. District Collector and District Magistrate of
Ranipet District, Ranipet
3. The Superintendent of Police
Ranipet District, Ranipet
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore
5. The Inspector of Police
Thimiri Police Station
Ranipet 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.3213 of 2024
for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection
with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated
02.12.2024 in B3/D.O.No.87/2024 against the petitioner's son Vinoth, Male,
aged 24 years, S/o Ramesh, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and
set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before
the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.D.Balaji
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, viz., Vinoth, S/o
Ramesh, aged 24 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings B3/D.O.No.87/2024 dated 02.12.2024.
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
counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 23.10.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 02.12.2024. 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
____________
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 B3/D.O.No.87/2024 dated 02.12.2024 is hereby set aside
and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Vinoth, S/o
Ramesh, aged 24 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore is directed
to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in
connection with any other case.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 21.01.2025
ss
To
1. The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of
Ranipet District, Ranipet
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Superintendent of Police
Ranipet District, Ranipet
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore
5. The Inspector of Police
Thimiri Police Station
Ranipet District
6. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ss
21.01.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
