Sankaralingam v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Sankaralingam Son of Vallinayagam ..
Petitioner/ Father of detenu Vs.
1.
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Secretary to Government Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai 2.
The District Collector and District Magistrate Coimbatore Coimbatore District 3.
The Superintendent of Police Central Prison - Coimbatore Coimbatore 4.
The Superintendent of Police Coimbatore Coimbatore - 641 018 Page Nos.1/8
5.
The Inspector of Police Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station Coimbatore 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 in Cr.M.P.No.25/G/2022/E1, passed by the 2nd respondent on 11.08.2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to produce petitioner and Hariharan, son of Sankaralingam, aged about 23 years, before this Court, who now detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr. A.Elumalai For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.N.Narkeeran, 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 father of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 11.08.2022 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.25/G/2022/E1' [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 are two adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.
458 of 2022 on the file of Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 447, 448, 323, 324, 307 and 560(ii)of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] read with Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. 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.
4. Mr.A.Elumalai, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.N.Narkeeran, 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 09.05.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 11.08.2022.
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 Page Nos.4/8
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 2023/MHC/733, Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary to the Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being Page Nos.5/8
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 11.08.2022 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.25/G/2022/E1 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Hariharan, aged 23 years, son of Thiru.Sankaralingam 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.) 20.03.2023 Index : Yes Speaking gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Coimbatore.
To 1.
The Secretary to Government Page Nos.6/8
Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai 2.
The District Collector and District Magistrate Coimbatore Coimbatore District 3.
The Superintendent of Police Central Prison - Coimbatore Coimbatore 4.
The Superintendent of Police Coimbatore Coimbatore - 641 018 5.
The Inspector of Police Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station Coimbatore District 6.
The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J., and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J., gpa 20.03.2023 Page Nos.8/8