V.Suguna v. The Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.10.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.2516 of 2024 V.Suguna ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3.The Inspector of Police, Salavakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District.
... Respondents PRAYER: 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 02.09.2024 in
Rc.No.209/2024/M6-D.O.58/2024 against the petitioner's son Kaviyarasan, S/o.Venkatesan, aged about 23 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at Liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings Rc.No.209/2024/M6-D.O.58/2024 dated 02.09.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention. 3.One adverse case has been relied on relating to NDPS Act. The detaining authority relied on the bail order dated 24.05.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.1463 of 2021 which is dissimilar. In the said case Court granted bail on the ground that even after lapse of sixty days chargesheet
has not been filed. However, the said circumstances are not in the present case which resulted in non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. The ground case can be dealt with by the Police authorities under the law of land.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 14.07.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 02.09.2024. 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 Rc.No.209/2024/M6-D.O.58/2024 dated 02.09.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Kaviyarasan, S/o.Venkatesan, aged about 23 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, 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.] 21.10.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ep
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ep To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3.The Inspector of Police, Salavakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
H.C.P.No.2516 of 2024 21.10.2024