Mohamed Razeen, v. The Union Of India, Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.10.2024 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Mohamed Razeen S/o Mohamed Ismail ..
Petitioner v.
1. The Union of India rep by The Joint Secretary to Government Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA Unit) Central Economic Intelligence Bureau 6th Floor, 'B' Wing, Janpath Bhawan New Delhi 110 001
2. The Union of India rep by The Director General Central Economic Intelligence Bureau Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue 6th Floor, 'B' Wing, Janpath Bhawan New Delhi 110 001
3. The Chairman COFEPOSA Advisory Board High Court of Madras, Chennai
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison Puzhal Central Prison, Chennai ..
Respondents 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 pertaining to the order of the 1st respondent in F.No.PD-12002/03/2024COFEPOSA dated 13.08.2024 and quash the same as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Mohamed Razeen, aged 46, S/o Mohamed Ismail, now confined in Central Prison-1,Puzhal before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner ::
Mr.I.Abdul Basith For Respondents ::
Mr.N.Ramesh Senior Panel Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor for R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.) The petitioner/detenu, viz., Mohamed Razeen, S/o Mohamed Ismail, aged 46 years, now confined at Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the first
respondent in F.No.PD-12002/03/2024-COFEPOSA dated 13.08.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 4th respondent.
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 28.06.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 13.08.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2.
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 first respondent in F.No.PD-12002/03/2024-COFEPOSA dated 13.08.2024 is hereby set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mohamed
Razeen Mohamed Ismail, S/o Mohamed Ismail, aged 46 years, now confined at Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai , is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (V.S.G.,J.) 17.10.2024 ss To
1. The Joint Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA Unit) Central Economic Intelligence Bureau 6th Floor, 'B' Wing, Janpath Bhawan New Delhi 110 001
2. The Director General Central Economic Intelligence Bureau Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue 6th Floor, 'B' Wing, Janpath Bhawan New Delhi 110 001
3. The Chairman COFEPOSA Advisory Board High Court of Madras, Chennai
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison Puzhal Central Prison, Chennai
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
ss 17.10.2024