K.Sathya v. The Additional Secretary To Government,
HCP NO. 729 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-07-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN H.C.P NO. 729 of 2025 K.Sathya W/o.Karthick, No.1383, Karpaga Vinayagar Nagar, 4th Main Road Vettuvankeni, Chennai-600 115.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Additional Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort. St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police, J-8, Neelankarai Police Station, Chennai.
Respondent(s) PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in No.172/ BCDFGISSSV/2025, dated 24.03.2025 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu namely Dheenadayalan, S/o.Karthick, aged 23 years as Drug Offender, now he is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mrs.M.Kalyani
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of detenu viz. Dheenadayalan, aged about 23 years, S/o.Karthick, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.03.2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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 15.02.2025 and thereafter, the
detention order came to be passed on 24.03.2025. 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 second respondent on 24.03.2025 in BCDFGISSSV No.172/2025, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Dheenadayalan, male, aged about 23 years, S/o.Karthick, 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.RAMESH J.) (V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.) 04-07-2025 kas Index: Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking To
1. The Additional Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort. St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police, J-8, Neelankarai Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104 M.S.RAMESH, J.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
H.C.P NO. 729 of 2025 04.07.2025