Madras High Court
Rakib Alam vs The Secretary To The Government on 6 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.345 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.345 of 2025
Rakib Alam
Petitioner(s) /brother of the detenue
Vs
1. The Secretary To The Government
Home Prohibition And Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal-II.
4.The Inspector Of Police
R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station, Adayar.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the
order of detention passed by the second respondent 20.01.2025 in
No.26/BCDFGISSSV/2025 against the petitioner's brother Mohamed
Rakeeb, aged 28 years, S/o.Mohamed Sabeer, confined at Central prison,
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
HCP.No.345 of 2025
Puzhal-II and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenue before the Honble court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the brother of the detenu, Mohamed
Rakeeb, aged 28 years, S/o.Mohamed Sabeer, confined at Central prison,
Puzhal-II, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 20.01.2025 slapped on his
brother, 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
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
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 16.12.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 20.01.2025. 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
decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
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: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 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 20.01.2025 in No.26/BCDFGISSSV/2025, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mohamed Rakeeb, aged
28 years, S/o.Mohamed Sabeer, confined at Central prison, Puzhal-II, 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]
06.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Anu
To
1. The Secretary To The Government
Home Prohibition And Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner Of Police
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent Of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal-II.
4.The Inspector Of Police
R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station, Adayar.
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
