G.Ramu v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR G.Ramu ..
Petitioner/ Father of Detenu Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, O/o.District Collector, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichirappalli.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
5.The Inspector of Police, Ervanchery Police Station, Kodavasal Taluk, Thiruvarur District.
..
Respondents Page Nos.1/8
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in C.O.C.No.23/2022 dated 05.08.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Prakash son of Ramu, Hindu, aged about 24 years who now confined in Central Prison, Thiruchirapalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Baskar 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 the father of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 05.08.2022 bearing reference C.O.C.No.23/2022' [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 detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
Page Nos.2/8
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 no adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.162 of 2022 on the file of Eravancherry Police Station for alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302 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. 4.Mr.R.Baskar, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Page Nos.3/8
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by 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 20.06.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 05.08.2022.
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.
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 Page Nos.4/8
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 Bench 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 2023/MHC/733 and series of other HCP matters. Page Nos.5/8
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 05.08.2022 bearing reference C.O.C.No.23/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Prakash, male, aged 24 years, son of Thiru.Ramu 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.) (M.N.K.,J.) 16.03.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking cse P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
Page Nos.6/8
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, O/o.District Collector, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichirappalli.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
5.The Inspector of Police, Ervanchery Police Station, Kodavasal Taluk, Thiruvarur District.
6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., cse 16.03.2023 Page Nos.8/8