Allowed

Asaithambi v. State Rep.by

Madras HC29 Apr 2024HCP/214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition against a drug offender detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Relying on precedent on unexplained delay between arrest and detention order snapping the live and proximate link, the court quashed the detention and directed the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order BCDFGISSSV No.711/2023 set aside; detenu Asaithambi directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless confinement required in any other case.

Asaithambi Vs State Rep.by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.214 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.No.214 of 2024

¶7

Asaithambi

¶8

... Petitioner/ detenu

¶9

Vs.

¶10

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

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.

¶12

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, S-3, Meenambakkam Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in BCDFGISSSV No.711 of 2023 dated 29.12.2023 in detaining the detenue under 2 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Drug Offender and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue

¶15

Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

HCP.No.214 of 2024

¶17

Asaithambi, son of Eswaran, aged about 43 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before the Court and set him at liberty.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

¶19

ORDER

¶20

M.S.RAMESH, J. AND

¶21

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶22

The petitioner herein is the detenu has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 29.12.2023 slapped on him, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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 14 of 1982].

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

HCP.No.214 of 2024

¶26

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.

¶27

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 22.11.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 29.12.2023. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

“ 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

¶31

Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

HCP.No.214 of 2024

¶33

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 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 .

¶35

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

¶36

Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

HCP.No.214 of 2024

¶38

reported in

¶39

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 second respondent on 29.12.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.711/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Asaithambi, son of Eswaran, aged about 43 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶41

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 29.04.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶42

Anu

¶43

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

¶44

HCP.No.214 of 2024

¶45

Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

HCP.No.214 of 2024