Allowed

Yuvarani v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

Madras HC4 Jun 2024HCP/267/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by Yuvarani challenging her husband's detention. The Court held that the unexplained inordinate delay between the arrest and the passing of the detention order snapped the live link between grounds and purpose, rendering the order bad and invalid. The detention order was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Memo No.02/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 02.01.2024 was set aside. The detenu Appu @ Jinda @ Udhayanidhi was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Yuvarani Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.267 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.No.267 of 2024

¶7

Yuvarani ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009

¶10

2.The Commissioner of Police The Greater Chennai City Vepery, Chennai 600 007

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066

¶12

4.The Inspector of Police D-1. Triplicane Police Station Chennai ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the

¶14

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

¶15

H.C.P.No.267 of 2024

¶16

detention order in Memo No.02/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 02.01.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband APPU @ JINDA @ UDHAYANIDHI, S/o.MANOHAR, aged about 28 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.U.Yuvaraj

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J. AND

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz. Thiru.Appu@ Jinda@ Udhayanidhi, aged about 28 years, S/o.Manohar, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 02.01.2024 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, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual

¶23

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

¶24

H.C.P.No.267 of 2024

¶25

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 20.11.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 02.01.2024. 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 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

H.C.P.No.267 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 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

¶35

SCC OnLine Mad 6332' , had held that when there is an inordinate delay

¶36

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

¶37

H.C.P.No.267 of 2024

¶38

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

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

¶41

02.01.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.02/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thiru.Appu @ Jinda @ Udhayanidh i, aged about 28 years, S/o.Manohar, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any

¶42

other case.

¶43

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]

¶44

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

¶45

H.C.P.No.267 of 2024

¶46

04.06.2024

¶47

kas

¶48

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

¶49

H.C.P.No.267 of 2024

¶50

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

¶51

kas

¶52

¶53

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police The Greater Chennai City Vepery Chennai 600 007 3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal Chennai – 600 066 4.The Inspector of Police D-1. Triplicane Police Station Chennai

¶54

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

¶55

H.C.P.No.267 of 2024

¶56

04.06.2024

¶57

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

Yuvarani v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvarani v. State of Tamilnadu, 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

Gowsalya Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its

Shanthi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Padmini Vs the Secretary to Government

Mallika Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Arun Vijay (a) Mohamed Ismail Vs State by Inspector of Police

P.Gunavathi Vs the Home Secretary