Ganesan v. State Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAGAVADI Ganesan Son of Rengasami ..Petitioner / Detenu's father Vs.
1.
State of Tamilnadu Rep. By the Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department St.George Fort Chennai - 600 009 2.
The District Collector & District Magistrate Tiruvarur District 3.
The Superintendent of Police Tiruvarur District Tamilnadu - 610 004 4.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Trichy Chennai - 600 020 Page Nos.1/9
5. Inspector of Police Tiruvarur Town Police Station Tiruvarur District ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in relating to the detention order dated 19.09.2022 made in detention order C.O.C.No.28 of 2022 passed by the 2nd respondent herein, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son Urulai Bala @ Balakumar, son of Ganesan, aged about 29 years branded as Goonda and now confined in Central Prison, Trichy District before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.C.Mohan 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 26.04.2023, this Bench made an order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: Page Nos.2/9
Page Nos.3/9
Page Nos.4/9
2.Mr.C.Mohan 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 03.08.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 19.09.2022.
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 Page Nos.5/9
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.
6. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/733], Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary being 2023:MHC:1110], N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to Government and and a series of other orders in HCP cases.
Page Nos.6/9
7. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
8. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 19.09.2022 bearing reference C.O.C.No.28/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Urulai Bala @ Balakumar, aged 29 years, son of Thiru.Ganesan 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.) (K.G.T.,J.) 09.06.2023 Index : Yes Speaking order gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli Page Nos.7/9
To 1.
The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009 2.
The District Collector & District Magistrate Tiruvarur District 3.
The Superintendent of Police Tiruvarur District Tamilnadu - 610 004 4.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Trichy Chennai - 600 020 5.
The Inspector of Police Tiruvarur Town Police Station Tiruvarur District 6.
The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai Page Nos.8/9
M.SUNDAR, J., and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAGAVADI , J., gpa 09.06.2023 Page Nos.9/9