Pandiammal v. The Principal Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.12.2023 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Pandiammal .. Petitioner/Mother of the detenue vs 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai, Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, 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 in pursuant to the proceedings of second respondent in Detention Order No.70/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 31.07.2023 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely 1/11
Thatchinamoorthi @ Thatchina, S/o.Muniyasamy, aged 20 years who is now detained in Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.P.Praveenkumar For Respondents :
Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] came up for admission on 02.11.2023, this Bench made an order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
2/11
3/11
4/11
2.The aforementioned 02.11.2023 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 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.
5/11
3.There is no adverse case. This solitary case which is the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.219 of 2023 on the file of B5 South Gate Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C which was subsequently altered into Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C and again altered into Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 341, 342, 302 and 212 of I.P.C. 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.P.Praveenkumar, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.S.Ravi, 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 has snapped as date of arrest in the ground case is 17.05.2023 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 31.07.2023.
6/11
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 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 sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is a solitary case viz., Crime No.219 of 2023 on the file of B5 South Gate Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C which was subsequently altered into Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C and again altered into Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 341, 342, 302 and 212 of I.P.C. 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 31.07.2023 bearing reference No.70/BCDFGISSSV/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Thatchinamoorthi @ Thatchina, aged 20 years, son of Thiru.Muniyasamy, 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.) 04.12.2023 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 Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai, Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, 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 04.12.2023 11/11