Madras High Court
Lalli vs The Secretary To Government on 6 March, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.245 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
H.C.P.No.245 of 2025
Lalli ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Coimbatore City
Coimbatore 641018
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison
Coimbatore 641 018
4.The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station West
Coimbatore 641 002 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of detention order in
C.No.120/G/IS/2024, dated 24.10.2024, on the file of the 2nd respondent
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 01:26:29 pm )
H.C.P.No.245 of 2025
and to set aside the same and direct the 1st and 2nd respondent herein to
produce the detenu Mr.K.Sivalingam, S/o.Late Kumar, aged about 29
years, now confined in Central Prison at Coimbatore before this Court and
set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anand
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.M.Sylvestor John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz.
K.Sivalingam, S/o. Late Kumar, aged about 29 years, has come forward
with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 24.10.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Sexual
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: 12/03/2025 01:26:29 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 22.09.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 24.10.2024. 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 01:26:29 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: 12/03/2025 01:26:29 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 24.10.2024 in C.No.120/G/IS/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., K.Sivalingam, aged about 29
years, S/o.Late Kumar, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]
06.03.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 01:26:29 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
kas
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Coimbatore City
Coimbatore 641018
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison
Coimbatore 641 018
4.The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station West
Coimbatore 641 002
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
06.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 01:26:29 pm )
