Krishnan v. The Secretary To The Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.10.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.Nos.2489 & 2490 of 2024 Krishnan ... Petitioner in H.C.P.No.2489 of 2024 Prakash ... Petitioner in H.C.P.No.2490 of 2024 Vs.

1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.District Collector and District Magistrate of Ranipet District, Ranipet.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.

5.The Inspector of Police, Walajapet Police Station, Ranipet District.

... Respondents in both petitions

PRAYER in H.C.P.No.2489 of 2024: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in Connection with the order of Detention passed by the Second respondent dated 26.02.2024 in B3 D.O.No.11/2024 Petitioner/Detenue Krishnan Male aged 38 years S/o.Mani who is confined at Central Prison Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Court and set him at Liberty. PRAYER in H.C.P.No.2490 of 2024: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in Connection with the order of Detention passed by the Second respondent dated 26.02.2024 in B3 D.O.No.10/2024 Petitioner/Detenue Prakash, Male aged 41 years S/o.

Mani who is confined at Central Prison Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Court and set him at Liberty. (In both petitions) For Petitioner : Mr.P.Raman for Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings B3 D.O.No.11/2024 and B3 D.O.No.10/2024 dated 26.02.

to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petitions.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.

4. In the instant case, the detenus were arrested on 30.01.2024 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 orders passed by the second respondent in B3 D.O.No.11/2024 and B3 D.O.No.10/2024 dated 26.02.2024, are hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petitions areallowed. The detenu viz., Krishnan Male aged 38 years S/o.Mani who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and Prakash, Male aged 41 years S/o.Mani who is confined at Central Prison Vellore are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless their confinement is required in connection with any other case. [S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.] 18.10.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

gd

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

gd To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.District Collector and District Magistrate of Ranipet District, Ranipet.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.

5.The Inspector of Police, Walajapet Police Station, Ranipet District.

6.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Fort ST.George, Chennai - 9.

7.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

H.C.P.Nos.2489 & 2490 of 2024 18.10.2024