Dhanalakshmi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Additional Chief Secretary To Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-09-2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR Dhanalakshmi W/o Selvamani ..Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3. The Inspector of Police, K6, TP Chatram Police Station, Chennai.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II,(Men), Puzhal, 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 relating to the detention order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the second respondent in and direct the No.347/BCFGISSSV/2025 respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son in law namely

Sathishkumar, male aged 34 years, son of Gangadurai, who is presently undergoing detention in the central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirugnanam For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J.Nisha Banu,J.

and S.Sounthar,J The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the detenu, viz., Sathishkumar, aged 34 years, S/o Gangadurai, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.347/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 12.06.2025, 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 sub section (2) of section 3 of the said 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. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is delay in passing the detention order. He would further state that though the detenue was arrested on 10.05.2025,the detention order was passed only on 12.06.2025. 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 fairly submits that there is a delay 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 detenue was arrested on 10.05.2025, the order of detention came to be passed only on 12.06.2025. 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. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each 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 respondent in No.347/BCFGISSSV/2025 dated 12.06.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz.,Sathishkumar, aged 34 years, S/o Gangadurai, who is now confined in the Central Prison-II, 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.) vsi 24.09.2025 To

1. The Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3. The Inspector of Police, K6, TP Chatram Police Station, Chennai.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II,(Men),

Puzhal, Chennai.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Chennai

J. NISHA BANU, J.

and S. SOUNTHAR, J.

vsi 24-09-2025