Madras High Court
Appasamy vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 30 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
H.C.P.No.1814 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1814 of 2025
Appasamy ...Petitioner/Detenue's father
-vs-
1 . The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvarur District.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Tiruvarur Taluk Police Station,
In-charge of Vaipoor Police Station,
Tiruvarur District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention
order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in
C.O.C.NO.15/2025 dated 30.06.2025 in detain the detenue under 2(b) of
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
H.C.P.No.1814 of 2025
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a BOOT-LEGGER and quash the same and
direct the respondent to produce the detenue Vignesh, S/o.Appasamy about
50 years who is detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this
honourable court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenue, namely,
Vignesh, S/o.Appasamy aged about 50 years, detained at Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli, has come forward with this petition, challenging the
detention order dated 30.06.2025, passed by the second respondent in
C.O.C.NO.15/2025, branding him as a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under
Section 2(b) of 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 and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of thirty
two days' delay in passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 29.05.2025
and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 30.06.2024. This
fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The Apex
Court in the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura',
reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813' in respect of 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, had held that the live and
proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands
snapped in arresting the detenu. The relevant passage 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
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.”
5. 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.
6. 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 delay in passing the order of
detention, after the arrest of the detenue, the detention order in the present
case, is liable to be quashed.
7. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed and the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in
C.O.C.NO.15/2025 dated 30.06.2025, is hereby set aside. The detenue, viz.,
Vignesh, S/o.Appasamy aged about 50 years, who is now confined in the
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, is hereby directed to be set at liberty
forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
30.10.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvarur District.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Tiruvarur Taluk Police Station,
In-charge of Vaipoor Police Station,
Tiruvarur District.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1814 of 2025
30.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
