Madras High Court
Hari Priya vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.277 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.277 of 2025
Hari Priya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police
AVADI City
Office of the Commissioner of Plice
Avadi 600 054
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
4.The Inspector of Police
PEW Ambattur Police Station
Avadi City ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
H.C.P.No.277 of 2025
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the
detention order No.3/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 08.01.2025 against the
petitioner's husband Dilip, S/o.Jaganathan, Male, aged 29 years, the detenu
herein now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and produce the
detenu before this Court and to set aside the detention order and st him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.I.Ramanathan
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. Dilip, aged
about 29 years, S/o.Jaganathan, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
08.01.2025 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].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 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 30.10.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 08.01.2025. 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
“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
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: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 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 08.01.2025 in No.03/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The petitioner / detenu viz., DILIP,
aged about 29 years, S/o.Jaganathan, 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.]
05.06.2025
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
AVADI City
Office of the Commissioner of Plice
Avadi 600 054
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
4.The Inspector of Police
PEW Ambattur Police Station
Avadi City
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
05.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
