Pinki v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA Pinki ... Petitioner/ Mother of the Detenu -vs1.State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in his
proceedings P.D.No.07/2025 detention order dated 28.02.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu namely Arun, S/o.Shanmugam, aged 28 years (now detained at Central Prison, Trichy) before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.N.Ananda Kumar For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Arun, son of Shanmugam, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.07/2025, dated 28.02.205 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the grounds that the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.1.2025 in pursuant to the registration of the FIR in Cr.No.33 of 2025 under Section 8(c ) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vallam Police Station, Thanjavur. However, the detention order was passed only on 28.02.2025 after a period of 32 days. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the same. He further submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.
4. On a perusal of the counter affidavit and also the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents reveals that there was an unexplained delay of 32 days in passing the detention order. The live and proximate link between the arrest of the detenu and the need for passing the order of detention has snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
5. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333, when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order unless such delay is satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:- "20.
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. In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.No.07/2025, dated 28.02.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Arun, son of Shanmugam, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 12.12.2025 am NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
AND R. POORNIMA,J.
am 12.12.2025