Mrs. Kajol v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-09-2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR H.C.P.No.1244 of 2025 Kajol W/o Saran ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai City, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police, PEW St. Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai.

... Respondents PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records connected with the detention order passed by 2nd respondent in Memo No.BCDFGISSSV No.255/2025 dated 13.05.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of petitioner's husband namely Saran, S/o.Mukundan, aged 31

years, detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.S.Manikandan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J.Nisha Banu,J.

and S.Sounthar,J The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, viz., Saran, Son of Mukundhan, aged about 31 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.255/2025 dated 13.05.2025, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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 14 of 1982] read with the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.97 Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 11.04.2025 under

section 3(2) of the aforesaid Act.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner was arrested on 12.04.2025 and the detention order was passed only on 13.05.2025. Hence, there is a delay in passing the order of detention. Therefore, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also states that the petitioner was arrested on 12.04.2025 and the order of detention was passed only on 13.05.2025 and there is a delay of one day in passing the detention order.

5. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. As seen from the grounds of detention, it is clear that though the detenu was arrested on 12.04.2025, the order of detention came to be passed only on

13.05.2025. There is no satisfactory explanation offered by the Detaining Authority for the delay in passing the order of detention. Hence, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

6. Further, the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura', reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:- "20.

It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the "live and proximate link" between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu.

case."

Therefore, following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.255/2025 dated 13.05.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz., Saran, Son of Mukundhan, aged about 31 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

(J.NISHA BANU J.) (S.SOUNTHAR J.) 22.09.2025 vsi To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai City, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police, PEW St. Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Chennai

J. NISHA BANU, J.

and S. SOUNTHAR, J.

vsi H.C.P.No.1244 of 2025 22-09-2025