Bindu v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.2600 of 2024 Bindu ... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenu Vs.
1.
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.
The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City, Office of COP, Avadi, Chennai - 600 054.
3.
The Inspector of Police, T-9, Pattabiram Police Station, Chennai.
4.
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.144/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 29.08.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to Produce the petitioners husband THIRU.AZEEZ S/O.NAZEER, aged about 36 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's husband THIRU.AZEEZ S/O.NAZEER, aged about 36 years the detenue herein at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar 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 29.08.2024 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 24.06.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 29.08.2024. 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 2nd respondent, BCDFGISSSV No.144 of 2024 dated 29.08.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Azeez, aged 36 years, S/o. Nazeer confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.] 30.10.2024 Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No :
Yes/No veda
To 1.
The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, 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 Commissioner of Police, Avadi City, Office of COP, Avadi, Chennai - 600 054.
4.
The Inspector of Police, T-9, Pattabiram Police Station, Chennai.
5.
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
6.
The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai - 104.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda H.C.P.No.2600 of 2024 30.10.2024