Allowed

Shoufeena v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC13 Jun 2024HCP/175/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged her husband's preventive detention as a 'Drug Offender' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Relying on precedent that unexplained delay between arrest and detention order snaps the live and proximate link, the Division Bench quashed the detention order and directed the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 16.01.2024 set aside; detenu Mohammed Sahal directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

Shoufeena Vs the Secretary to the Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.175 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

H.C.P.No.175 of 2024

Shoufeena

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009

¶11

2.District Magistrate and District Collector of The Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Police The Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Coimbatore

¶14

5.The Inspector of Police Masinagudi Police Station The Nilgiris District ... Respondents

¶15

Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

H.C.P.No.175 of 2024

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 16.01.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.05/2024 against the petitioner's husband Mohammed Sahal, Male aged 28 years S/o.Asainar, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

¶20

ORDER

¶21

M.S.RAMESH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶22

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz. Thiru.Mohammed Sahal, aged about 28 years, S/o.Asainar, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 16.01.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,

¶23

Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

H.C.P.No.175 of 2024

¶25

Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶26

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶27

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.

¶28

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 31.10.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 16.01.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶29

5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura' , reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813' , when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between the

¶30

Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

H.C.P.No.175 of 2024

¶32

grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the detenu. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:-

¶33

“ 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. ”

¶34

6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar

¶35

Banik's case , a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332' , had held that when there is an inordinate delay from the date of arrest/date of proposal till the order of detention, the live

¶36

Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

H.C.P.No.175 of 2024

¶38

and proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detention order on this ground .

¶39

7. In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' , reported in ' (2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428' , this Court had held that the delay of 36 days in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. Hence, in view of the unexplained and inordinate delay in passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenu, the detention order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.

¶40

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent on 16.01.2024 in Cr.M.P .No.05/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thiru.Mohammed Sahal, aged about 28 years, S/o.Asainar, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶41

kas

¶42

Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

H.C.P.No.175 of 2024

¶44

M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶45

kas

¶46

To.