Pavithra v. State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Pavithra W/o.Sunil Kumar ..
Petitioner/ Wife of detenu Vs.
1.
State of Tamilnadu Rep. By the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2.
The District Collector and District Magistrate of Ranipet District Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate Ranipet District, Ranipet-1 3.
The Superintendent of Police Ranipet Ranipet District 4.
The Superintendent of Police Central Prison, Vellore Vellore District Page Nos.1/8
5. The Inspector of Police Arakkonam Taluk Police Station Ranipet District ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in B3/D.O.No.37/2022, dated 22.07.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's husband Sunil Kumar, Son of Krishnan, aged 32 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr. S.Senthil Vel for Mr.S.Prabudoss For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.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 wife of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 22.07.2022 bearing reference B3/D.O No.37/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the Page Nos.2/8
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, 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.164 of 2022 on the file of Arakkonam Taluk Police Station, which was initially registered for offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C was subsequently altered to offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with 120B of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 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.3/8
4. Mr. S.Senthil Vel, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, Advocate, 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 petitioner was surrendered and remanded to judicial custody on 26.05.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 22.07.2022.
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 ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable.
Page Nos.4/8
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.
8. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being Page Nos.5/8
2023/MHC/733, Sangeetha 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. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
10. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 22.07.2022 bearing reference B3/D.O No.37/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Sunilkumar, aged 32 years, son of Thiru.Krishnan 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.) (N.A.V.,J.) 23.03.2023 Index : Yes gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Vellore Page Nos.6/8
To 1.
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2.
The District Collector and District Magistrate of Ranipet District Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate Ranipet District, Ranipet-1 3.
The Superintendent of Police Ranipet Ranipet District 4.
The Superintendent of Police Central Prison, Vellore Vellore District 5.
The Inspector of Police Arakkonam Taluk Police Station Ranipet District 6.
The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J., and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J., gpa 23.03.2023 Page Nos.8/8