Rajeshwari v. Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Rajeshwari .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.
3.The Inspector of Police, Nallur Police Station, Tiruppur City.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.C.No.58/G/IS/TIRUPPUR CITY/2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Manikandan @ Bullet Manikandan, son of Page Nos.1/7
Murugesan, aged about 26 years, who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, as Goonda before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Vinoth For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
[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 detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 18.07.2022 bearing reference C.No.58/G/IS/TIRUPPUR CITY/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, third respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as 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 Page Nos.2/7
offenders, Sand-offenders, 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. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.360 of 2022 on the file of Nallur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 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 or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.M.Vinoth, learned counsel 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.
Page Nos.3/7
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 remand in the ground case is 03.06.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 18.07.2022.
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 State Additional Public 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 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 Page Nos.4/7
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 Bench in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil being 2023/MHC/733 and series of other HCP matters.
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 18.07.2022 bearing reference Page Nos.5/7
C.No.58/G/IS/TIRUPPUR CITY/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Manikandan @ Bullet Manikandan, male, aged 26 years, son of Thiru.Murugesan 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.) 15.03.2023 Index : Yes / No mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Coimbatore.
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.
3.The Inspector of Police, Nallur Police Station, Tiruppur City.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.6/7
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., mmi 15.03.2023 Page Nos.7/7