Allowed

Sathya v. State Rep.by

Madras HC27 Sept 2024HCP/2112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the High Court quashed a preventive detention order due to unexplained inordinate delay between the detenu's arrest and the passing of the order, holding that such delay invalidates the detention as it snaps the link between grounds and purpose.

What did the court decide?

The detention order was set aside, the habeas corpus petition was allowed, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Sathya Vs State Rep.by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.2112 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.09.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

¶6

H.C.P.No.2112 of 2024

¶7

Sathya

¶8

... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenu

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State represented by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶11

The District Collector and District Magistrate,

¶12

Salem District, Salem.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Salem.

¶14

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

¶15

The Inspector of Police, Attur Rural Police Station, Salem District. ... Respondents

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

HCP.No.2112 of 2024

¶19

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in C.M.P.No.14/BOOTLEGGER/C2/2024 dated 12.08.2024 on the file of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem District and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Thiru.Suresh S/o. Sellamuthu aged about 40 years now confined at Central Prison, Salem and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sengkodi For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶23

The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 12.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

HCP.No.2112 of 2024

¶29

In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 22.06.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 12.08.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶30

In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura' ,

¶31

reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813' , when there was an inordinate delay from

¶32

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 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

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

HCP.No.2112 of 2024

¶37

the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. ”

¶38

Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar 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 and proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detention order on this ground .

¶39

In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' ,

¶40

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.

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Page 4 of 7

¶43

HCP.No.2112 of 2024

¶44

Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings C.M.P.No.14/BOOTLEGGER/C2/2024 dated 12.08.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed . The detenu viz., Suresh, aged 40 years, S/o. Sellamuthu confined at Central Prison, Salem is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶45

[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.] 27.09.2024

¶46

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order veda

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 7

¶48

HCP.No.2112 of 2024

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

¶52

The District Collector and District Magistrate,

¶53

Salem District, Salem.

¶54

The Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Salem.

¶55

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

¶56

The Inspector of Police, Attur Rural Police Station, Salem District.

¶57

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai - 104.

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

Page 6 of 7

¶60

HCP.No.2112 of 2024

¶61

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

veda

HCP.No.2112 of 2024

27.09.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 7

Sathya v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathya v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Aravindakumar Vs State Rep.by

A.S.Ismail @ Appamma Ismail Vs Union of India Rep by

V.Chandran Vs the State Rep by

M.Stella Mary Vs the Secretary to Government

S.Elumalai Vs the Superintendant of Prison

Nalammal Vs the Principal Chief Secretary to Government, Home