Rathna v. Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P.NO.1016 OF 2023 Rathna ..
Petitioner VS.
State rep. By:
1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.
3.The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.
4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Salem.
1/10
5.The Inspector of Police Kaveripattinam Police Station Krishnagiri District.
..
Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in S.C.No.08/2023, dated 12.05.2023 on the file of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Thiru. Sankar S/o. Chinnasamy, aged about 43 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Siranjeevi For Respondents :
Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] came up for admission on 16.06.2023, this Bench made an order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
2/10
3/10
2.The aforementioned order made in the 16.06.2023 Admission listing shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order which means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order in the Admission listing shall be used in the instant order also. 4/10
3.There are two adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.153 of 2023 on the file of Kaveripattinam Police Station for alleged offence under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned preventive detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4.Mr.R.Siranjeevi, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
5.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as date of surrender and remand in the ground case is 21.03.2023 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 12.05.2023. 6.Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned State Additional Public 5/10
Prosecutor submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time was consumed for the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned State Additional Public Prosecutor is unacceptable. 7.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 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.
6/10
8.To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported vide Vs. The Secretary to the Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1110, N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1159 and a series of other orders in HCP cases.
9.To be noted, out of the two adverse cases, the first adverse case is in Crime No.94 of 2015 on the file of Krishnagiri KRP Dam Police Station (occurrence was on 23.03.2015) and second adverse case is in Crime No.412 of 2015 on the file of Krishnagiri KRP Dam Police Station (occurrence was on 12.10.2015) and therefore time consumed remains unexplained.
7/10
10.Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ. 11.Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 12.05.2023 bearing reference S.C.No.08/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru. Sankar, aged 43 years, son of Thiru. Chinnasamy 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.] [R.S.V., J.] 13.09.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order TK P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Salem.
8/10
To 1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.
3.The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.
4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police Kaveripattinam Police Station Krishnagiri District.
6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
9/10
M.SUNDAR, J.
AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK H.C.P.NO.1016 OF 2023 13.09.2023 10/10