Anjala v. State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Anjala W/o.Kannan .. Petitioner Vs.
1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.
The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai.
3.
The Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai.
4.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Vellore - 632 002.
5.
Inspector of Police Kalasapakkam Police Station Tiruvannamalai District.
..
Respondents Page Nos.1/8
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's son Pandiyan, son of Kannan, male, aged about 24 years is presently lodged in Central Prison, Vellore - 632 002 and has been detained under Act 14/82 as a "GOONDA" vide detention order dated 10.09.2022 made in D.O.No.83/2022-C2 by the District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before this Hon'ble Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Vellore at Vellore.
For Petitioner :
Mr.Rajavelu For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, 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 mother of the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 10.09.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.83/2022-C2' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is Page Nos.2/8
the detaining authority as the impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
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 is one adverse case and one ground case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.313 of 2022 on the file of Kalasapakkam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix Page Nos.3/8
or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.Rajavelu, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel 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 date of arrest in the ground case is 28.07.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 10.09.2022.
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 in this exercise. Considering the facts / circumstances of the case on hand 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 Page Nos.4/8
Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. To be noted, Banik case law 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 a proposal by a 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 the 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 Page Nos.5/8
others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 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 10.09.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.83/2022-C2 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Pandiyan, aged 24 years, son of Thiru.Kannan, 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.) (M.N.K.,J.) 03.04.2023 Index : Yes Speaking mk P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Vellore.
Page Nos.6/8
To 1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.
The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai.
3.
The Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai.
4.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Vellore - 632 002.
5.
Inspector of Police Kalasapakkam Police Station Tiruvannamalai District.
6.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., mk 03.04.2023 Page Nos.8/8