Allowed

Parimala v. the Secretary to the Government

Preventive detention – habeas corpus

Madras HC1 Oct 2024HCP/2211/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order. The court found an unexplained delay from the detenu's arrest to the detention order snapped the live and proximate link, and also found non-application of mind in reliance on an unrelated Covid-era bail order. The detention order was set aside and the detenu released.

What did the court decide?

Detention order C3/D.O.No.43/2024 dated 16.08.2024 set aside; detenu Senna Kesavan @ Kesavan to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in another case.

Parimala Vs the Secretary to the Government — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.2211 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.10.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

H.C.P.No.2211 of 2024

Parimala

... Petitioner/Wife

of the Detenue

Vs.

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

¶12

District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupathur District, Tirupathur - 635 601.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Tirupathur District, Tirupathur-1.

¶14

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore - 2.

¶15

The Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Taluk Police Station, Tirupathur District. ... Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

HCP.No.2211 of 2024

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 16.08.2024 in C3/D.O.No.43/2024 against the petitioner husband Senna Kesavan @ Kesavan, Male aged 30 years S/o. Subramani, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Raman 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

¶24

16.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the

¶26

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶27

Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned

¶28

counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.

¶29

Page 2 of 7

¶30

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

¶31

HCP.No.2211 of 2024

¶32

In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 11.07.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 16.08.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶33

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

¶34

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:-

¶35

“ 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

¶36

Page 3 of 7

¶37

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

¶38

HCP.No.2211 of 2024

¶39

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. ”

¶40

Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar

¶41

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 .

¶42

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.

¶43

Page 4 of 7

¶44

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

¶45

HCP.No.2211 of 2024

¶46

Further, the similar case bail order relied on by the detaining Authority passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in Cr.M.P.No.3646 of 2021 is dissimilar. The Principal District and Sessions Judge granted bail on the ground of Covid-19 and to maintain social distancing during the relevant point of time. Thus, the reliance placed on by the detaining Authority would result in non-application of mind.

¶47

Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings No.C3/D.O.No.43/2024 dated 16.08.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed . The detenu viz., Senna Kesavan @ Kesavan, aged 30 years, S/o. Subramani confined at Central Prison, Vellore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.] 01.10.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No veda

¶49

Page 5 of 7

¶50

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

¶51

HCP.No.2211 of 2024

¶52

¶53