B.Surya v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR B.Surya .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
.. 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 relating to impugned order of the detention dated 06.09.2022 in No.291/BCDFGISSSV/2022 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to setforth the detenue Priya, daughter of Kannan, aged about 37 years, Page Nos.1/9
now confined in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai - 66 and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.K.Chandrakumar For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
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 06.02.2023 admitted the captioned HCP and issued Rule nisi. A scanned reproduction of the order dated 06.02.2023 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. To be noted the 'detention order dated 06.09.2022 bearing reference No.291/BCDFGISSSV/2022' made by the detaining authority shall be referred to as 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
4.
Adverting to and elaborating on the point raised at the time of admission (captured in paragraph 5 of the admission proceedings), Mr.K.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as date of remand in the ground case is 14.07.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 06.09.2022.
5. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, 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.
7. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by Page Nos.6/9
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 06.09.2022 bearing reference No.291/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenue Tmt.Priya, female, aged 37 years, daughter of Thiru.Kannan 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 Page Nos.7/9
costs.
(M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 24.04.2023 Index : Yes mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai. To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.8/9
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., mmi 24.04.2023 Page Nos.9/9