Shalini v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Shalini .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet District, Ranipet District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
5.The Inspector of Police, Kaveripakkam Police Station, Ranipet District.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for 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 23.09.2022 in Memo No.B3/D.O.No.53/2022 dated 23.09.2022 Page Nos.1/9
against the petitioner's husband Mr.Rajeshkumar @ Anil, Male, aged about 29 years, S/o.Mr.Kotteswaran, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the order and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Balasubramanian For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] This order will now dispose of captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ('HCP' for the sake of brevity).
2.
When the captioned HCP was listed in the Admission Board, this Court vide order dated 09.02.2023 admitted the captioned HCP and issued Rule nisi. A scanned reproduction of the order dated 09.02.2023 is as follows:
Page Nos.2/9
Page Nos.3/9
Page Nos.4/9
3.
The aforementioned proceedings made at the time of admission captures the factual matrix in a nut shell and therefore the aforementioned proceedings shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order.
4.
Though in the Admission Board, the points that the intimation pertaining to detention order was furnished belatedly and that there is variation between the grounds of detention in English and Tamil were raised, in the hearing today, Mr.R.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped. In support of this contention, learned counsel pointed out that the date of arrest is 09.08.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 23.09.2022.
5. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time was consumed for the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this Page Nos.5/9
explanation of learned State Additional Public Prosecutor is unacceptable.
6. We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik's case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. To be noted, Banik case law arose under 'Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'PIT NDPS Act' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, wherein after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 'live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping' point should be examined on a case to case basis. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is 'unreasonable delay' and the other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay. Page Nos.6/9
7. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil being 2023/MHC/733, Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary to the High Court being 2023:MHC:1110, N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to High Court being 2023:MHC:1159 and a series of other orders in HCP cases.
8. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
9. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 23.09.2022 bearing reference B3/D.O.No.53/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Rajeshkumar @ Anil, aged about 29 years, son of Page Nos.7/9
Thiru.Kotteeswaran, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 17.04.2023 Index : Yes / No mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Vellore.
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet District, Ranipet District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
5.The Inspector of Police, Kaveripakkam Police Station, Ranipet District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.8/9
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR , J., mmi 17.04.2023 Page Nos.9/9