Kaila Roopa v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.07.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Kaila Roopa ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2.The District Magistrate & District Collector Tiruppur District Tiruppur 3.The Superintendent of Police Tiruppur Tiruppur District 4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison- Coimbatore Coimbatore District 5.State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police MANGALAM Police Station Tiruppur District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 13.04.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in proceedings Memo Cr.M.P.No.28/Goonda/2024 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband namely Asarudheen, S/o.Saleem Sait, aged 26 years before this Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore. For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz. Asarudheen, aged about 26 years, S/o.Saleem Said, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 13.04.2024 slapped on her husband, 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. 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 detenu was arrested on 23.02.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 13.04.2024. 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 detenu. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:- "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.
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 detenu 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 detenu, the detention order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent on 13.04.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.28/ GOONDA / 2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Asarudheen, aged about 26 years, S/o.Saleem Sait, 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] 31.07.2024 kas Index : Yes / No Note :- Registry shall forthwith return the booklet containing the materials, on which, the Detaining Authority has placed reliance, to the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner with due acknowledgment.
To 1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2.The District Magistrate & District Collector Tiruppur District Tiruppur 3.The Superintendent of Police Tiruppur Tiruppur District 4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison- Coimbatore Coimbatore District 5.The Inspector of Police MANGALAM Police Station Tiruppur District 6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN , J.
kas 31.07.2024