Madras High Court
Bhavani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 26 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
H.C.P.No.1622 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-09-2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
H.C.P.No.1622 of 2025
Bhavani
W/o Prabakaran ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
its Secretary to Government,
Home,Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Velipalayam Police Station,
Nagapattinam.
(Cr.No.121/2025) ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
H.C.P.No.1622 of 2025
Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call
for the records of the proceedings of the second respondent in
C.O.C.No.18/2025 dated 02.06.2025 and quash the same and produce the
detenu, Vinith @ Kavivarnan, S/o Prabhakaran aged about 26 years, now
detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Ms.P.Vimala
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu,J.
and
S.Sounthar,J
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, viz., Vinith @
Kavivarnan, S/o Prabhakaran, aged 26 years, who is confined at Central
Prison, Cuddalore, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent in C.O.C.No.18/2025
dated 02.06.2025, 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] read with the order issued
by the Government in G.O.(D).No.120 Home Prohibition and Excise
(XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 under sub section (2) of section 3 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
the said 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. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is delay
in passing the detention order. He would further state that though the
detenue was arrested on 23.04.2025,the detention order was passed only
on 02.06.2025. 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 23.04.2025, the order of detention came to be passed only on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
02.06.2025. 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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
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
respondent in C.O.C.No.18/2025 dated 02.06.2025 is hereby set aside.
The detenu, viz.,Vinith @ Kavivarnan, aged 26 years, S/o Prabhakaran,
who is now confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore, 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.)
vsi 26.09.2025
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home,Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Velipalayam Police Station,
Nagapattinam.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
vsi
26-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:09:40 pm )
