Hameethabanu v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN Hameethabanu W/o.Nazar (Detenu) ..Petitioner / Wife of detenu Vs.
1.
State of Tamilnadu Rep. By the Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009 2.
The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai 3.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai 4.
State rep. By Inspector of Police B1 North Beach Police Station Chennai ... Respondents Page Nos.1/10
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the order made in No.301/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 16.09.2022 detaining the detenu under the Tamilnadu Act 14 /1982 as a Drug Offender and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely Nazar, son of Vaisool Karunai, aged 52 years who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Raj For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John Advocate
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] When the matter came up for admission on 13.03.2023, this Bench made an order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: Page Nos.2/10
Page Nos.3/10
Page Nos.4/10
2.Mr.S.Raj, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, Advocate, for all respondents are before us.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as petitioner was arrested on 01.06.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 16.09.2022. Page Nos.5/10
4. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected /collated and time was consumed in this exercise. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable.
5. 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 other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay.
Page Nos.6/10
6. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/733, Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary to the Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1110, N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1159 and a series of other orders in HCP cases.
7. We are also informed without any disputation by both sides that coaccused in the ground case was also clamped with an identical preventive detention order and co-accused assailed the same vide H.C.P.No.1999 of 2022 and this HCP was allowed in and by an order dated 28.03.2023 by this Bench on the same point.
Page Nos.7/10
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 16.09.2022 bearing reference 301/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Nazar, aged 52 years, son of Thiru.Vaisool Karunai 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.) (D.N.R.,J.) 06.04.2023 Index : Yes Speaking gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal.
Page Nos.8/10
To 1.
The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009 2.
The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai 3.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai 4.
The Inspector of Police B1 North Beach Police Station Chennai 5.
The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai Page Nos.9/10
M.SUNDAR, J., and Dr.D.NAGARJUN, J., gpa 06.04.2023 Page Nos.10/10