Selvadharshini v. The Principal Secretary To Government

1 H.C.P.(MD)NO.830 OF 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.12.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA H.C.P.(MD)No.830 of 2024 Selvadharshini ... Petitioner/Wife of the detenu Vs.

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

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Tiruchirappalli Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

... Respondents Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition is 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 of the second respondent in C.O.C.No.5/2024 dated 23.05.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Jeeva, S/o.Ramesh, aged about 30 years now detained as "Bootlegger" at Tiruchirappalli Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

1/5

2 H.C.P.(MD)NO.830 OF 2024 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Abdul Rahuman For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

* * *

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner's husband was detained as Bootlegger vide order dated 23.05.2024 by the second respondent. The detenu was arrested on 04.04.2024. The detention order came to be passed only on 23.05.2024. There is a gap of more than 50 days between the date of arrest and the date of detention. The case of the petitioner is that on account of the delay in passing the detention order, the live and proximate link between the grounds and the purpose of detention stood snapped.

3. The petitioner's counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2022 Livelaw (SC) 813) (Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision held as follows:- "20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there 2/5

3 H.C.P.(MD)NO.830 OF 2024 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. We are satisfied that the aforesaid decision clearly applies to the case on hand. The detention order is quashed on this ground. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise warranted by law. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (R. POORNIMA, J.) 2nd December 2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PMU 3/5

4 H.C.P.(MD)NO.830 OF 2024 To:

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

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Tiruchirappalli Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

5 H.C.P.(MD)NO.830 OF 2024 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND R. POORNIMA, J.

PMU H.C.P.(MD)No.830 of 2024 02.12.2024 5/5