Ammu v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Additional Chief Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 24.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN H.C.P.No.2083 of 2025 Ammu ... Petitioner Mother of the detenu

Versus

1. The State of Tamilnadu Represented by Additional Chief Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009

2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai District

3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal 1/9

Chennai

4. The Inspector of Police K-6, T.P.Chathiram Police Station Chennai District Crime No.162/2025 ... Respondents 2/9

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order vide Memo No.520/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 31.07.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce petitioner son namely Ramamoorthy, aged about 28 yrs, S/o.Ramakrishnan, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Honble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.V.Saravanan For Respondents :

Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Ramamoorthy, aged about 28 yrs, S/o.Ramakrishnan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 31.07.2025 bearing reference No. 520/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and 3/9

Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 29.06.2025 but the impugned detention order has been passed on 31.07.2025.

4. Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected /collated and time was consumed in this exercise. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable.

5. In Sushanta Kumar Banik's case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. 4/9

State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333] which arose under 'Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'PIT NDPS Act' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 'live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping' point should be examined on a case to case basis. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is 'unreasonable delay' and other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that the this matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay. Hence, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

6. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 31.07.2025 in Memo 5/9

No.520/BCDFGISSSV/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu viz., Ramamoorthy, male, aged about 28 yrs, S/o.Ramakrishnan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 24.11.2025 Index: Yes/No gpa 6/9

To

1. The Additional Chief Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009

2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai District

3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai

4. The Inspector of Police K-6, T.P.Chathiram Police Station Chennai District

5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9 6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

7/9

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J., gpa H.C.P.No.2083 of 2025 8/9

24.11.2025 9/9