Amsaveni v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Amsaveni .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Singarapettai Police Station, Krishnagiri 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 records pertaining to the detention order in S.C.No.18/2022 dated 11.06.2022 passed by the second respondent and quash the same by setting the detenu namely Thiru.Sivaraman, S/o.Thiru.Dhanapal aged about 35 years and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison, Salem. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Sathyaraj For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
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 wife of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 11.06.2022 bearing reference S.C.No.18/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
Page Nos.2/8
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, 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 'Sexual Offender' within the meaning of Section 2(ggg) of Act 14 of 1982. 3.There is no adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.127/2022 on the file of Singarapettai Police Station for alleged offences under Section 5(m) read with 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012' [hereinafter 'POCSO' 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.S.Sathyaraj, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Page Nos.
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 surrender in the ground case is 28.04.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 11.06.2022. 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 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 Page Nos.4/8
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 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 Page Nos.5/8
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 11.06.2022 bearing reference S.C.No.18/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Sivaraman, male, aged 35 years, son of Thiru.Dhanapal 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.) 10.04.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking cse P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Salem.
Page Nos.6/8
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Singarapettai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., cse 10.04.2023 Page Nos.8/8