S.Muthammal v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.11.2023 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL S.Muthammal .. Petitioner/Mother of the detenue vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Secretariat, George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.
.. Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in M.H.S.Confdl No.60/2023 dated 14.06.2023 and set aside the order of detention passed therein, direct the 1/11
respondents to produce the detenu by name Appranantham alias Karthick, male aged 27 years, S/o.Sudalaimuthu (the detenu) before this Court, now detained at Central Prison, Madurai and set aside the order of detention passed therein and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :
Mr.J.William Christopher For Respondents :
Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity] was listed before us in the Admission Board on 06.11.2023 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: 2/11
3/11
4/11
2.The aforementioned 06.11.2023 Admission Board order captures all essentials, i.e., all facts that are imperative for appreciating the final order and therefore, we are not setting out the facts again in this final order. Suffice to say that aforementioned Admission Board order shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this final order. Be 5/11
that as it may, we are using the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the Admission Board order in this order also for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3.There is one adverse case and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.104 of 2023 on the file of Ambasamudram Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Considering the nature of the challenge to the impugned preventive detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the case. 4.Mr.J.William Christopher, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us. 5.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that 'live and proximate link' between grounds of detention and purpose of detention 6/11
has snapped as date of arrest in the ground case is 15.05.2023 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 14.06.2023.
6.Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time was consumed in this exercise. Considering the facts / circumstances of the case on hand and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable. 7.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 7/11
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 delay' and the other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay. 8.To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and 2023/MHC/733, Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary to the Government and 2023:MHC:1110, N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to Government and 2023:MHC:1159 and a series of similar orders in HCP cases. 9.To be noted, the adverse case is in Crime No.34 of 2020 on the file of Ambasamudram Police Station (occurrence was on 09.02.2020) and therefore time consumed remains unexplained. 8/11
10.Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
11.Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 14.06.2023 bearing reference M.H.S.Confdl.No.60/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Appranantham alias Karthick, aged 27 years, son of Thiru.Sudalaimuthu, 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.) 20.11.2023 Index : Yes/No ps Post Script: (i) Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Madurai.
(ii) All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. 9/11
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Secretariat, George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
10/11
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., ps 20.11.2023 11/11