Madras High Court
Rajeshwari vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 3 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP No. 255 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
HCP No. 255 of 2025
Rajeshwari
Petitioner
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu,
Rep.By Its Principal Secretary,
Home, Prohibition And Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector And District Magistrate,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent Of Police,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector Of Police,
Railway Police Circle, Tanjavur.
Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )
HCP No. 255 of 2025
a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records leading to the order of
detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 10.10.2024 in C.O.C.No.39 of
2024 against the petitioners son Prasanth, son of Chinnadurai, aged about 27
who is confined at Central Prison, Thiruchirapalli, and set aside the same and
direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Santhosh
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.Ramesh J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely Prasanth
aged about 27 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent dated 10.10.2024 issued
against her son, 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 ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )
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 07.09.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 10.10.2024. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )
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
10.10.2024 in C.O.C.No.39/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus
Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Prasanth, aged about 27 years,
S/o.Chinnadurai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement
is required in connection with any other case.
(M.S.RAMESH J.) (V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.)
03-06-2025
nl
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )
To
1.The Principal Secretary
Home, Prohibition And Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector And District Magistrate,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent Of Police,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector Of Police,
Railway Police Circle, Tanjavur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )
M.S.RAMESH J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )
03-06-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:08:05 pm )
