Durga Devi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2026 Latest Caselaw 2079 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2079 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 April, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Durga Devi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2026

Author: Anita Sumanth

Bench: Anita Sumanth

HCP No. 1984 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

HCP No. 1984 of 2025

Durga Devi ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Complex, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police Office of Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai-600 007.

3. The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

4. The Inspector of Police K-6.T.P. Chatram Police Station, Chennai District.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in 604/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 Dated 26-08-2025

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the detenu Raja @ Omlette Raja aged 33 years, S/o. Selvaraj, who is presently confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Senthilvel for M/s.Arul Selvam Associates

For Respondent(s): Mr. R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assisted By Mr. M.Sylvester John

Order (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.)

The wife of detenu - Raja @ Omlette Raja, S/O.Selvaraj, aged 33

years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated

26.08.2025, branding him as ‘Drug Offender’ under Section 2(e) of the

Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982).

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention

that the detenu was arrested on 22.07.2025 and he was detained on

26.08.2025. Neither in the grounds of detention nor in the counter

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, any satisfactory explanation has been

given for the delay in passing the order of detention. We are of the view

that in view of the delay, the live and proximate link between grounds of

detention and the purpose of detention, stood snapped. In this regard, we

may rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 'Sushanta

Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura', reported in '2022 SCC OnLine SC

1333' and the relevant paragraph reads as follows:

“21. 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.”

4. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar

Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gomathi

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.

5. 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.

6.In light of the above discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is

allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in

Detention Order No.604/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 26.08.2025 is set

aside.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7.The detenu, viz., Raja @ Omlette Raja, S/O.Selvaraj, aged 33

years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be

set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with

any other case.

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 21-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

Note to office: