Jayapal v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.2230 of 2023 Jayapal ... Petitioner / detenue Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Veppery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police (L & O) E-5, Fore Shore Estate Police Station, Chennai.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of the second respondent in detention order in No.429/BEDFGISSSV/2023 dated 29.09.2023 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act, 14 and set aside the same as illegal and unconstitutional and also direct the respondents to produce the detenue Jayapal, S/o.Ramasamy, TPDA No.4778, aged 29 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein is the detenu viz., Jayapal, S/o.Ramasamy, TPDA No.4778, aged 29 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention
order passed by the second respondent dated 29.09.2023 slapped on him, branding him as "Goonda" 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 14 of 1982].
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 19.08.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 29.09.2023. 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.
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 on 29.09.2023 in No.429/BEDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Jayapal, S/o.Ramasamy, TPDA No.4778, aged 29 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 26.02.2024 (1/6) Index: Yes/No Anu To 1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Veppery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police (L & O) E-5, Fore Shore Estate Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu H.C.P.No.2230 of 2023 26.02.2024