Renuka Devi v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Renuka Devi W/o.Murugan ..
Petitioner Vs.
1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department (Home) Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Commissioner of Police Commissioner Office Avadi, Chennai-600 054.
3.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
4.
The Inspector of Police E-3, Minjur Police Station Thiruvallur District - 601 203.
..
Respondents Page Nos.1/7
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detenu's detention order passed by the 2nd respondent vide BCDFGISSSV No.80/2022 dated 19.07.2022 and set aside the same and produce the detenu Aravindakumar, son of Murugan, male aged about 25 years, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner :
Mr.G.Balachandar representing Mr.Ranjith Kumar For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, Advocate
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 19.07.2022 bearing reference No.80/BCDFGISSSV/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority.
2. Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Page Nos.2/7
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 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 no adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.
248 of 2022 on the file of E-3 Minjur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 302 and 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and subsequently, altered as Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 302, 506(ii) of IPC read with 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 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.
Page Nos.3/7
4. Mr.G.Balachandar, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel 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 remand in the ground case is 18.05.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 19.07.2022.
6. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public 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 the ground case, we find that this explanation to be unacceptable.
7. We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik's case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw Page Nos.4/7
(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.
8. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
9. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 19.07.2022 bearing reference No.80/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Aravindakumar, aged 26 years, son of Thiru.Murugan, is Page Nos.5/7
directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases.
10. Captioned HCP ordered on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 06.03.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking mk P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
To 1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department (Home) Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Commissioner of Police Commissioner Office Avadi, Chennai-600 054.
3.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
4.
The Inspector of Police E-3, Minjur Police Station Thiruvallur District - 601 203.
5.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.6/7
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., mk 06.03.2023 Page Nos.7/7