S.Palkani v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P.NO.1256 OF 2023 S.Palkani .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Police Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Coimbatore.
5.The Inspector of Police Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station Coimbatore.
.. Respondents 1/10
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, calling for the entire records from the second respondent in connection with order in Crl.M.P.No.11/G/2023/E1 dated 09.02.2023 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's son namely Siva S/o. Suresh, aged 27 years now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Ms.S.Nadhiya For Respondents :
Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.C.Aravind
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 17.07.2023, this Bench made an order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
2/10
3/10
4/10
2.The aforementioned order made in the 17.07.2023 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. 3.There is one adverse case and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.902 of 2022 on the file of Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station for alleged offence under Section 392 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.Ms.S.Nadhiya, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind, learned counsel for all respondents are before us. 5/10
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 arrest and remand in the ground case is 23.12.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 09.02.2023. 6.Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind, learned counsel 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 6/10
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.
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.
7/10
9.To be noted, the adverse case viz.,. Crime No.44 of 2019 on the file of Thoothukudi District, Kulasekaranpattinam Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 454 and 392 of IPC, is of the year 2019, the occurrence was on 21.02.2019 and therefore time consumed remains unexplained.
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 09.02.2023 bearing reference Crl.M.P.No.11/G/2023/E1 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru. Siva, aged 27 years, son of Thiru. Suresh 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.] 03.08.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order TK 8/10
P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Coimbatore.
To 1.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Police Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Coimbatore.
5.The Inspector of Police Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station Coimbatore.
6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
9/10
M.SUNDAR, J.
AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK H.C.P.NO.1256 OF 2023 03.08.2023 10/10