Dhevi Priya v. The Principal Secretary To The Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.733 of 2025 Dhevi Priya ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate District Collector Office Campus, Thanjavur District

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Trichy ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order P.D.No.13 of 2024 dated 07.07.2024 passed by the second respondent on the petitioner's husband namely Aravind (28/13), S/o.Rajendran, South Street, Narthangudi, Valangaiman Taluk, Tiruvarur District has been detained and branded Page No.1 of 8

as 'Goonda' under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982 and confined at Central Prison, Trichy to set aside the same and to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Joel Paul Antony For Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Aravind, son of Rajendran, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.13 of 2024 dated 07.07.2024, holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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.

Page No.2 of 8

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this is the second Habeus Corpus Petition . He would further submit that in the earlier application the point of delay in passing the detention order was not argued. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested in the ground case on 29.04.2024 but the detention order was passed on 07.07.2024. He would further submit that during the pendency of the detention he had also been acquitted in two cases under the POCSO Act.

4. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that there is an inordinate delay between the arrest of the detenu and passing the impugned detention order. In this case, the detenu was arrested on 29.04.2024, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 07.07.2024, i.e., after a lapse of more than two months. 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 Page No.3 of 8

date of the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though there was a delay in passing the impugned detention order, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

6. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 29.04.2024 and the detention order was passed on 07.07.2024. This shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which is also unexplained. 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.

Page No.4 of 8

7. 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.

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 Page No.

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."

8. 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.

9. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.No.13 of 2024 dated 07.07.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Aravind, son of Rajendran, aged about 27/2024 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 02.07.2025 Index : Yes / No aav Page No.6 of 8

To:

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate District Collector Office Campus, Thanjavur District

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Trichy 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page No.7 of 8

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

AND R.POORNIMA, J.

aav ORDER MADE IN DATED : 02.07.2025 Page No.8 of 8