Madras High Court
Ponlakshmi vs The Secretary To Government on 22 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1024 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-09-2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1024 of 2025
Ponlakshmi,
W/o Saravanakumar ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
5. The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Karumathampatty Police Station,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call
for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the
2nd respondent dated 01.05.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.19/G/2025 against the
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
H.C.P.No.1024 of 2025
petitioner's husband Saravanakumar, M/27 years, Son of Periyasamy,
who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the same and
consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this
court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu,J.
and
S.Sounthar,J
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, viz., Saravanakumar, Son
of Periyasamy, aged about 27 years, who is confined at Central Prison,
Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo
Cr.M.P.No.19/G/2025 dated 01.05.2025 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] read
with the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.108, Home
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 under section
3(2) of the aforesaid Act.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining
Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that though the
detenue was arrested on 24.03.2025,the detention order was passed only
on 01.05.2025. Hence, there is a delay in passing the order of detention.
Therefore, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly submits
that there is a delay in passing the detention order.
5. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. As
seen from the grounds of detention, it is clear that though the detenue was
arrested on 24.03.2025, the order of detention came to be passed only on
01.05.2025. There is no satisfactory explanation offered by the Detaining
Authority for the delay in passing the order of detention. Hence, the
impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
6. Further, the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
the ratio laid down by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura', reported in '2022
LiveLaw (SC) 813. The relevant portion of the said judgment 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 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.”
Therefore, following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set
aside.
7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
detention order passed by the second respondent in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
Cr.M.P.No.19/G/2025 dated 01.05.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu,
viz.,Saravanakumar, Son of Periyasamy, aged about 27 years, who is now
confined in the Central Prison, Coimbtore is hereby directed to be set at
liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any
other case.
(J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.)
22.09.2025
vsi
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Karumathampatty Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
vsi
22-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:31 am )
