Dhanalakshmi v. State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.10.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.2396 of 2024 Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner/Mother of the Detenue Vs.
1.
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.
The District Collector and Magistrate, Tiruvarur, Tiruvarur District.
3.
The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur, Tiruvarur District.
4.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli.
5.
The Inspector of Police, Vadapathimangalam Police Station, Tiruvarur District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the detention 26.02.2024 in direction order C.O.C.No.02/2024 on the file of the second respondent herein, and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the person and body of the detenu Siva @ Sivarajan son of Balachandran, Hindu, aged about 25 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan For Respondents : Mr. E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 26.02.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition. 2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as 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 an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
4.
In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 27.11.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 26.02.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5.
In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura', reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', 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 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 Others', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332', 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 Nadu', reported in '(2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428', 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. 8.
Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings C.O.C.No.02/2024 dated 26.02.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Siva @ Sivarajan, aged 24/2024, S/o. Balachandran confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli 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.] 01.10.2024 Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No :
Yes/No veda
To 1.
The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.
The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3.
The District Collector and Magistrate, Tiruvarur, Tiruvarur District.
4.
The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur, Tiruvarur District.
5.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli.
6.
The Inspector of Police, Vadapathimangalam Police Station, Tiruvarur District.
7.
The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai - 104.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda H.C.P.No.2396 of 2024 01.10.2024