Nanthini v. State Rep By
2024:MHC:3549
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Nanthini ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police (L&O), K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai.
... Respondents Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of pertaining to the order of detention dated on 09.08.2024 passed by the 2nd
respondent in No.824/BCDFGISSSV/2024 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Thiru.Bachi @ Baskar S/o. Saminathan, male aged about 34 years, now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.] The present habeas corpus petition filed challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.824/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 09.08.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 19.06.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 09.08.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura1, when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the detenu. The relevant observation 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
1. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813
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."
6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gomathi vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others2, had held that when there is an inordinate delay from the date of arrest/date of proposal till the order of detention, the live and proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detention order on this ground.
7. In yet another case i.e., in Nagaraj vs. State of Tamil Nadu3, this Court had 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. Hence, in view of the unexplained and inordinate delay in passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenu, the detention order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
2. 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332
3. (2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.824/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 09.08.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Bachi @ Baskar, S/o. Saminathan, aged 34 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.] 03.10.2024 Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order / Non-speaking order To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police (L&O), K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
Jeni 03.10.2024