Jacky Sheriff v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19.02.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Jacky Sheriff ... Petitioner/Son of detenu Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch Crime Investigation Department Villupuram District.
5. The Superintendent Central Prison, Cuddalore.
... Respondents 1/8
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to petitioner's father detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 09.07.2023 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Rc.No.C2/45973/2023 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce petitioner's father namely Baragathulla alias Raja, aged 50 years, Son of Abubakkar, before this Hon'ble Court and set the detenu at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.M. Mohamed Saifulla For Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Aravind.C
O R D E R
M.S.RAMESH , J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The Petitioner, son of the detenu has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent against his father, in Rc.No.C2/45973/2023 dated 09.07.2023, branding the detenu as a "Bootlegger" contemplated under Section 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 2/8
1982.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay in passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, admittedly, the detenu was arrested on 17.05.2023 and the detention order was passed on 09.07.2023. In a similar case, where there was a delay in passing the detention order on 18.06.2022 after the arrest of the detenu on 08.04.2022, this Court in HCP No.1388 of 2022 [Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332], held as follows: "6.... As between 08.04.2022 and 18.06.2022, it is well over two months and given the facts and circumstances of the 3/8
instant case, particularly ground and the adverse cases, we find that this live and proximate link between grounds and purpose of detention had in fact snapped."
This Court, in the said order, drew inspiration from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813, though in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not directly deal with the issue of delay in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are 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 4/8
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."
5. In yet another case i.e., in Nagaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428, this Court held that the delay of 36 days in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention.
6. Therefore, though, we are of the view that in view of the unexplained delay in passing the order of detention after the arrest of the detenu, the detention order is liable to be quashed, we have also taken into consideration the sensitivity of the case involved and the objections of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there may be some law and order problem from the families of the victims in Villupuram District. 5/8
7. In this background, to secure the ends of justice, this Habeaus Corpus Petition is allowed on the following conditions. (i) The detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 09.07.2023 in Rc.No.C2/45973/2023, is set aside. (ii) The detenu viz., Baragathulla alias Raja, aged 50 years, S/o.Abubakkar, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.
(iii) The detenu is directed to stay within the revenue district of Cuddalore and report before the Inspector of Police, CBCID Office, New Town Police Station Campus, Cuddalore, daily at 10.30am, until further orders.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 19.02.2024 bga Index : Yes / No 6/8
To
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch Crime Investigation Department Villupuram District.
5. The Superintendent Central Prison, Cuddalore.
6. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
7. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
7/8
M.S.RAMESH , J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
bga 19.02.2024 8/8