Shanthi v. Home, Prohibition And Excise Department
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.07.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1269 of 2024 Shanthi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the Detention Order vide Cr.M.P.No.21/GOONDA/2024 dated 24.03.2024, passed by the Second Respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Praveenkumar, S/o.Govindaraj, aged 27 years, (who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore), before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Arun Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu Praveenkumar, aged about 27 years, S/o.Govindaraj, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.03.2024 slapped on her 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. 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 26.01.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 24.03.2024. 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 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 24.03.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.21/GOONDA/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Praveenkumar, aged about 27 years, S/o.Govindaraj, 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] 15.07.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Tsg To 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN , J.
Tsg H.C.P.No.1269 of 2024 15.07.2024