E.Chandra, Aged 38 Years v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.09.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No.1018 of 2018 E.Chandra W/o.Elumalai ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

... Respondents Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in D.O.No.16/2018-C2 dated 04.05.2018 and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondent to produce the detenu namely Ajith Kumar S/o.Elumalai, aged 20 years, residing at No.1/64, School Street, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner :

Mr.B.Jawahar For Respondents:

Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J) Petitioner is the mother of the detenu Ajithkumar S/o.Ezhumalai, who has been branded as a 'Sexual Offender' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in D.O.No.16/2018-C2 dated 04.05.2018.

2. The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.8 of 2018 on the file of All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai, for offence u/s.366(A), 376, 506(i) r/w 34 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the detenu was arrested on 24.03.2018 in respect of the ground case and the order of detention came to be passed on 04.05.2018. A period of one and a half month had lapsed between the date of arrest of the detenu and the sponsoring authority recommending his detention. Such long delay stands not explained and hence, the order of detention is liable to be set aside following the order of Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh v. District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli District and another [2005 MLJ (Crl.) 752].

4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.

5. In the decision relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner in Ramesh's case (cited supra), this Court has held as follows:

'....3.It is brought to our notice by the learned Government advocate that the analyst report was received on 06.12.2014 and the doctor has issued certificate on 07.12.2014. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the sponsoring authority has submitted his affidavit only on 15.01.2015. When the sponsoring authority is in possession of the analyst report and the doctor's report even on 06.12.2014 and 07.12.2014, there is no proper explanation for submitting his affidavit till 15.01.2015 for invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Even thereafter, the impugned detention order was passed only on 27.02.2015, i.e. After five weeks of receipt of the affidavit from the sponsoring authority. Though the detaining authority has filed a counter affidavit, there is no explanation for the undue delay in passing the impugned order.

4.In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on unreported decision of this Court rendered in H.C.P. No.1149 of 1995, dated 13.12.1995. In similar circumstances, after pointing out the unexplained delay between the date of submission of the affidavit by the sponsoring authority and the detention order, the Division Bench of this Court has concluded thus:

"Such delays tend to have an affect of snapping the link between prejudicial activity and

passing of preventive orders.......".'

Following the principle enunciated in the above said order of the Division Bench of this Court, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu Ajithkumar S/o.Ezhumalai in D.O.No.16/2018-C2 dated 04.05.2018 is quashed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

RJI(CO) sm:17.10.2018 H.C.P.No.1018 of 2018