M.Syed Sulthan Bheevi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its Additional Cheif Secretary To Government

2026:MHC:1646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN M.Syed Sulthan Bheevi W/o.Mujbrahman, No.1, Muslim Theru, Arasur village, Tharangamdadi Taluk, ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

2. The District Collector & The District Magistrate,

3. The Superintendent of Police Mayiladuthurai,

4. The Inspector of police Sirkazhi Police Station, Sirkazhi Taluk,

5. The Superintendent of Prison Central prison, Cuddalore.

..Respondent(s)

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue an order or orders or direction or writ in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent herein in C.O.C.No.39 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025 and quash the same and produce the detenu Thiru. Mujbrahman, S/o.Asankuthus, aged about 41 years, TPDA No.4627 now detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Shivakumar for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted By Mr. M. Sylvester John

ORDER

(Made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) Mujbrahman, S/o. Asankuthus, has been branded as 'Bootlegger' under Section 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act) and detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore vide detention order 01.09.2025. His mother has filed this petition seeking a quash of the aforesaid order.

2. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 30.07.2025 and he was detained on 01.09.2025. Neither in the grounds of detention nor in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd

respondent, has any satisfactory explanation been given for the delay in passing the order of detention. We are of the view that in view of the delay, the live and proximate link between grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, stood snapped. In this regard, we may rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813] and the relevant paragraph reads as follows: "21.

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."

4. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others' [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.

5. In yet another case i.e., in Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,[(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. In the present case as well, the delay, of a period of 32 days, is inordinate and unexplained and for this reason, vitiates the order, rendering it liable to be quashed.

6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in C.O.C.No.39/2025, dated 01.09.2025 is set aside.

7. The detenu, viz., Mujbrahman, S/o. Asankuthus, aged 41 years, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 29-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order ssm Note to Registry : Issue Today To

1. State of Tamilnadu rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

2. The District Collector The District Magistrate,

3. The Superintendent of Police Mayiladuthurai,

4. The Inspector of police Sirkazhi Police Station, Sirkazhi Taluk,

5. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Cuddalore

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

7. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai -9.

DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.

AND SUNDER MOHAN J.

ssm 29-04-2026