Devi v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2023 Coram THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Mrs.Devi W/o.Ravi ... Petitioner/Mother of the detenu -Vs1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate cum District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
3.The Superintendent of Police, No.4VRV+4JR, Chinna Ekkadu, Jaya Nagar, Thiruvallur-602 001.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police, E-1, Ponneri Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
... Respondents Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the Impugned order of detention dated 08.07.2022 in vide Memo No.35/BCDFGISSSV/2022 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to set forth the detenu
Vasanth @ Vasanth Kumar, S/o.Ravi aged 25 years now confined in Central prison II, Chennai before this Hon`ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.D.Prasanna Kumar For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John *****
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ('HCP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 08.07.2022 bearing reference B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V No.35/2022' (hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience). To be noted, fifth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
2. Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of
convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.
3. There is one adverse case and one ground case. The ground case which is the substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.126/2022 on the file of Ponneri Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307, 302 of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for brevity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.D.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John for all five respondents are before us.
5. Notwithstanding very many averments in the support affidavit, Mr.D.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is delay in making the detention order i.e., delay from the date of arrest in the ground case.
6. We are of the view that no time frame has been fixed in the Statute for making detention order. However, in legal parlance, the point to be tested is whether 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped. In this regard, it is to be noted that in the case on hand arrest in the ground case was on 09.05.2022 and impugned detention order was made only on 08.07.2022 nearly 2 months later. There is no explanation much less tenable explanation for two months time consumed in making the detention order.
7. We carefully considered the point that is exhorted. We find that a recent judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813] is of relevance. To be noted, Sushanta Kumar Banik case arose under 'Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'PIT NDPS Act' for the sake of brevity] in the State of Tripura. In Banik's case it comes to light that this 'live and proximate link' point turns on two facets. One facet is, 'unreasonable delay' and the other facet is 'unexplained delay'. In the case on hand, the captioned matter clearly falls under latter facet i.e., second facet of unexplained delay. We have no difficulty in saying that the ground case which
constitutes the substratum of impugned detention order has become stale.
8. In the light of the discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far, we are of the view that the impugned detention order is vitiated by 'live and proximate link' between grounds of detention and purpose of detention having snapped as the ground case which is the substratum of the impugned detention order has become stale.
9. Ergo, the sequitur is, H.C.P. No.1566 of 2022 is allowed, impugned detention order dated 08.07.2022 bearing reference B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V. No.35/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and detenu Mr.Vasanthkumar @ Vasanth, male, aged 25 years, son of Mr.Ravi, now detained in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai-66 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case/s. (M.S,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 02.03.2023 Speaking / Non-speaking kmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.
M.SUNDAR, J.
and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
kmi To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate cum District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
3.The Superintendent of Police, No.4VRV+4JR, Chinna Ekkadu, Jaya Nagar, Thiruvallur-602 001.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police, E-1, Ponneri Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
6. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai - 104.
02.03.2023