Rani v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.07.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Rani .. Petitioner/ Mother of the detenue
Versus
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City, Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section), Avadi, Chennai - 600 054.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police, T-2, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai - 600 058.
.. Respondents Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in No.18/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 06.03.2024 and quash the same and 1/7
direct the respondents to produce the body and person of detenue namely, Napoleon @ Kutty Pura, S/o.Raja, aged 30 years detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.B.M.Santharam For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH , J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenue viz., Napoleon @ Kutty Pura, S/o.Raja, aged about 30 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 06.03.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2/7
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenue was arrested on 16.01.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 06.03.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura', reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the detenue. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:- 3/7
"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 the detenu. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case."
6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332', had held that when there is an inordinate delay from the date of arrest/date of proposal till the order of detention, the live and proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detention order on this ground.
4/7
7. In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', reported in '(2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428', this Court had held that the delay of 36 days in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenue would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. Hence, in view of the unexplained and inordinate delay in passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenue, the detention order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 06.03.2024 in No.18/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Napoleon @ Kutty Pura, S/o.Raja, aged about 30 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 04.07.2024 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs 5/7
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City, Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section), Avadi, Chennai - 600 054.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police, T-2, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai - 600 058.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
6/7
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.
grs 04.07.2024 7/7