Allowed

P.S.Subitha v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC15 Jul 2024HCP/276/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged a Goondas Act preventive detention order on the ground of inordinate, unexplained delay between her husband's arrest and the detention order. Relying on precedent on snapping of the live link, the court set aside the detention order and ordered the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 25.12.2023 in S.C.No.24/2023 set aside; detenu Praveendas directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless confined in any other case.

P.S.Subitha Vs the Principal Secretary to Government — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.276 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.07.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

H.C.P.No.276 of 2024

P.S.Subitha

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

2.Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District.

¶14

5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District. ... Respondents

¶15

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

Page 1 of 8

HCP.No.276 of 2024

PRAYER:

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the detention order made in S.C.No.24/2023 dated 25.12.2023 passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Hon'ble Court and set the detenue Thiru.Praveendas, S/o.Sivadasan, aged 33 years now confined at Central Prison, Salem, Salem District at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudharsan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu Praveendas, aged about 33 years, S/o.Sivadasan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.12.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "GOONDA" under

¶24

the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

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

¶27

HCP.No.276 of 2024

¶28

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].

¶29

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

¶30

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶31

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.

¶32

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 16.10.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 25.12.2023. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶33

5. 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

¶35

Page 3 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

HCP.No.276 of 2024

¶38

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:-

¶39

“ 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. ”

¶40

6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar

¶41

Page 4 of 8

¶42

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

¶43

HCP.No.276 of 2024

¶44

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 .

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 25.12.2023 in S.C.No.24/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Praveendas, aged about

¶48

Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

HCP.No.276 of 2024

¶50

33 years, S/o.Sivadasan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless

¶51

his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶52

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

¶53

15.07.2024