[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Sathyajothi vs The State Represent By Its on 19 February, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
H.C.P.(MD)No.1422 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD)No.1422 of 2025
Sathyajothi ... Petitioner/
Wife of the Detenu
-vs-
1.The State represent by its,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai City. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
H.C.P.(MD)No.1422 of 2025
records of the second respondent in Detention Order in No.
33/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 16.08.2025 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently directing the respondents to produce the
body or person of the detenu namely Tamilarasan, son of
Manivannan, aged about 29 years, who is now detained at Central
Prison, Madurai and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Vijayaraja
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.)
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Tamilarasan,
son of Manivannan, aged about 29 years. The detenu has been
detained by the second respondent by his order in No.
33/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 16.08.2025 holding him to be a
"Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14
of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus
petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
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. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised
the grounds that the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody on 21.04.2025 in pursuant to the registration of the FIR in
Cr.No.375 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 296(b), 103(1)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and section 3 of (2)(v), 3(1)(s)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015. It was shown as ground case. However, the
detention order was passed only on 16.08.2025 after a period of 3 ½
months. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would
vitiate the same. He further submitted that there is no live and
proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the
detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned
detention order is also liable to be set aside.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
4. On a perusal of the counter affidavit and also the
submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents reveals that, the detenu was arrested
and remanded to judicial custody on 21.04.2025. However, the
detenu was detained under Act, 14 of 1982 only on 16.08.2025. This
shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which is
also unexplained. The live and proximate link between the arrest of
the detenu and the need for passing the order of detention has
snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of
detention is liable to be set aside.
5. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of
Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333, when there was
an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the
detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and
the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held
that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt
on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining
authority in passing the detention order unless such delay is
satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The
relevant portion 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
the detenu. A question whether the delay is
unreasonable and stands unexplained
depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case."
6. In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel for
the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained,
thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
and the order of detention in No.33/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated
16.08.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The
detenu, viz.,Tamilarasan, son of Manivannan, aged about 29 years,
is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in
connection with any other case.
[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.]
19.02.2026
am
NCC :Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai City.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND
R. POORNIMA,J.
am
19.02.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:23 pm )
