Madras High Court
Kavibarathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.297 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.297 of 2025
Kavibarathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai 66
4.The Inspector of Police
K-6, T.P.Chathiram Police Station
Chennai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records in No.28/
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
H.C.P.No.297 of 2025
BCDFGISSSV / 2025 dated 23.01.2025, on the file of second respondent
herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenu Rohan, son
of Doss, aged about 34 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of detenu viz. Rohan, aged
about 34 years, S/o.Doss, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 23.01.2025
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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
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 12.12.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 23.01.2025. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
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 23.01.2025 in No.28/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The petitioner / detenu viz., Rohan,
male, aged 34 years, S/o.Doss, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is
required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]
09.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Vepery, Chennai 600 007
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai 66
4.The Inspector of Police
K-6, T.P.Chathiram Police Station
Chennai
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
09.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
