P.Santhi v. The Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.10.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL P.Santhi ... Petitioner vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District, Nagercoil.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in P.D.No. 25 of 2023 dated 25.04.2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Sajeevanraj @ Sajeevan, aged about 24 years, S/o. Punitharaj, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Page No.1 of 8
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity] was listed in the Admission Board on 14.08.2023, a Hon'ble Coordinate Division Bench made the following order in the Admission Board:
Page No.2 of 8
2.
It has now become necessary to set out a thumbnail sketch of factual matrix and we do so in the paragraphs infra. 3.
Today, the captioned matter is in the Final Hearing Board. 4.
Mr.N.Pragalathan, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
5.
Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been filed by the mother of the detenu assailing the 'preventive detention order dated 25.04.2023 bearing reference P.D.No.25 of 2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience]. To be noted, sponsoring authority has not been arrayed as a respondent and we find that Station House Officer of Thuckalay Police Station, is the sponsoring authority [hereinafter 'sponsoring authority' for convenience and brevity] and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned preventive detention order has been made by second respondent. Page No.3 of 8
6.
Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.
7.
There are two adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.108 of 2023 on the file of Thuckalay Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 326, 307 and 506(ii) of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for brevity]. Considering the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the case.
8.
In the final hearing today, learned counsel predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the point Page No.4 of 8
that the detenu was arrested on 14.03.2023 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 25.04.2023 resulting in live and proximate link between grounds and purpose of detention getting snapped.
9.
Mr.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that materials had to be collected and time was consumed in this exercise.
10.
We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik's case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. To be noted, Banik case arose under 'Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'PIT NDPS Act' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, wherein after considering a proposal by a Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 'live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping' point should be examined on a case to case basis. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is 'unreasonable Page No.5 of 8
delay' and the other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay. 11.
To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/733, Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary to the Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1110, N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1159 and a series of similar orders in HCP cases. 12.
To be noted, the first adverse case is in Crime No.1032 of 2020 on the file of Marthandam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC [alleged occurrence on 17.12.2020], second adverse case is Crime No.767 of 2021 on the file of Thuckalay Police Station for alleged offences under Section 379 of IPC [alleged occurrence on 27.11.2021], ground case is Crime No.108 of Page No.6 of 8
2023 on the file of Thuckalay Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 326, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC [alleged occurrence on 14.03.2023] and therefore time consumed remains unexplained. 13.
Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ. 14.
Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 25.04.2023 bearing reference in P.D.No. 25/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Sajeevanraj @ Sajeevan, aged about 24 years, son of Thiru.Punitharaj, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.) Index : Yes / No 30.10.2023 : Yes / No bala P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
Page No.7 of 8
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
bala To
1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District, Nagercoil.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
ORDER MADE IN DATED : 30.10.2023 Page No.8 of 8