Chand v. The Secretary To The Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN Chand Petitioner Vs
1. The Secretary To The Government, Home Prohibition And Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.District Magistrate And District Collector Of Namakkal District, Namakkal.
3.The Superintendent Of Police, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
4.The Superintendent Of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector Of Police, Veppadai Police Station, Namakkal District.
Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 12.11.2024 in C.M.P.No.64/GOONDA/2024/(M1) against the Petitioner Friend Sowkin, Male aged 26 years S/o.Subankhan, who is confined at Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue before the Honble Court and set him at Liberty For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.Ramesh J.) The petitioner herein, who is the friend of the detenu namely Sowkin aged about 26 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 12.11.2024 issued against his friend, 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 27.09.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 12.11.2024. 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 on 12.11.2024 in C.M.P.No.64/GOONDA/2024/(M1), is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sowkin, aged about 26 years, S/o.Subankhan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. (M.S.RAMESH J.) (V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.) 03-06-2025 nl Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order
To 1.The Secretary To The Government, Home Prohibition And Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.District Magistrate And District Collector Of Namakkal District, Namakkal.
3.The Superintendent Of Police, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
4.The Superintendent Of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector Of Police, Veppadai Police Station, Namakkal District.
M.S.RAMESH J.
AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.
nl
03-06-2025