[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Valli vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 29 April, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
HCP No. 2074 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
HCP No. 2074 of 2025
Valli
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police
(Goondas Section),
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore,
Coimbatore - 641 018.
4. The Inspector of Police
K-6 ,T.P.Chatram Police Station,
Chennai - 600 030.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for
issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with
the detention order of the 2nd respondent in No. 673/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dt.
12.09.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body
and person of petitioner’s husband namely Ganesan @ Racer Ganesan
S/o. Radhakrishnan aged about 28 years, detained in Central Prison,
Coimbatore, before this court and set him at liberty forthwith.
__________
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP No. 2074 of 2025
For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.M.Santharam
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 - Ganesan @ Racer Ganesan S/o. Radhakrishnan
aged 28 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated
12.09.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) 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 10.08.2025 and he was detained on 12.09.2025.
Neither in the grounds of detention nor in the counter 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
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 the grounds and purpose of detention would stand snapped.
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
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. 673/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 12.09.2025 is set aside.
7.The detenu, viz., Ganesan @ Racer Ganesan S/o. Radhakrishnan aged
28 years, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, 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.)
29-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
TSG
Note: Issue order copy today.
__________
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police
(Goondas Section),
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore,
Coimbatore - 641 018.
4. The Inspector of Police
K-6 ,T.P.Chatram Police Station,
Chennai - 600 030.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order),
Secretariat, Fort.St. George, Chennai – 9.
__________
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
TSG
29-04-2026
__________
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
