Revathi.L v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.01.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Revathi.L W/o Loganathan ..
Petitioner v.
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. District Magistrate and District Collector Namakkal, Namakkal District
3. Superintendent of Police Namakkal, Namakkal District
4. Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for Women Coimbatore District
5. Inspector of Police Prohibition Enforcement Wing Tiruchengode, Namakkal District ..
Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for records pertaining to the detenue L.Gowri, daughter of L.Revathi, who is detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as Drug Offender at Special Prison for Women at Coimbatore vide order in C.M.P.No.68/Drug Offender/2024 (M1) dated 15.11.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and direct the 4th respondent herein to produce the detenue L.Gowri, Daughter of L.Revathi, aged about 29 years, before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner ::
Mr.I.Periaswamy For Respondents ::
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenue, viz., Gowri, D/o L.Revathi, W/o Kumaresh, aged 29 years, now confined at Special Prison for Women, Coimbatore has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings C.M.P.No.68/Drug Offender/2024 (M1) dated 15.11.2024.
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 08.10.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 15.11.2024. 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 in proceedings C.M.P.No.68/Drug Offender/2024 (M1) dated 15.11.2024 is hereby set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Gowri, D/o L.Revathi, W/o Kumaresh, aged 29 years, now confined at Special Prison for Women, Coimbatore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her confinement is required in connection with any other case.
Index : yes/no (S.M.S.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) 22.01.2025 ss
To
1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Namakkal, Namakkal District
3. The Superintendent of Police Namakkal, Namakkal District
4. The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for Women Coimbatore District
5. The Inspector of Police Prohibition Enforcement Wing Tiruchengode, Namakkal District
6. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ss 22.01.2025