Kanimozhi v. Home, Prohibition And Excise Department

1 H.C.P.(MD)NO.1027 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.1027 of 2024 Kanimozhi ... Petitioner / Wife of the detenu Vs.

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, (Additional Charge), Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, 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 records in pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent in P.D.No.10 of 2024 dated 24.05.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Azhagesan, S/o.Rajendran, aged 38 years who is now detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty. 1/5

2 H.C.P.(MD)NO.1027 OF 2024 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran 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 Goonda by the second respondent vide order dated 24.05.2024. The detenu was arrested on 02.04.2024. There is a gap of more than 50 days between the date of arrest and the date of detention order. 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:- 2/5

3 H.C.P.(MD)NO.1027 OF 2024 "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 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.1027 OF 2024 To:

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, (Additional Charge), Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

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

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

4/5

5 H.C.P.(MD)NO.1027 OF 2024 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND R. POORNIMA, J.

PMU H.C.P.(MD)No.1027 of 2024 02.12.2024 5/5