Allowed

Gomathi v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC12 Jun 2024HCP/296/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing a detention order passed under the Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act against J.Elango due to an unexplained inordinate delay of nearly a month between arrest and detention, which snapped the link between grounds and purpose of detention.

What did the court decide?

Detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.60/2023 dated 21.12.2023 set aside; detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Gomathi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.296 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.No.296 of 2024

¶7

Gomathi

¶8

... Petitioner/mother of the detenu

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-590 009.

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Chennai.

¶12

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

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri Police Station, Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents

¶14

Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

HCP.No.296 of 2024

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

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 issued by the second respondent herein in BCDFGISSSV No.60/2023 dated 21.12.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenue namely J.Elango @ Puli, S/o.Jayaraman, aged about 25 years, the son of the petitioner herein and set him at liberty from the third respondent prison viz., the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-66, forthwith.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu viz., J.Elango @ Puli, S/o.Jayaraman, aged about 25 years, detained at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-66, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 21.12.2023 slapped

¶22

Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

HCP.No.296 of 2024

¶24

on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of

¶25

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].

¶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

¶28

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

¶29

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 14.11.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 21.12.2023. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

HCP.No.296 of 2024

¶34

from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise,

¶35

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

¶36

hereunder:-

¶37

“ 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. ”

¶38

Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

HCP.No.296 of 2024

¶40

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 .

¶41

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

¶42

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

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent

¶44

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

¶45

HCP.No.296 of 2024

¶46

on 21.12.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.60/2023, is hereby set aside and the

¶47

Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., J.Elango @ Puli, S/o.Jayaraman, aged about 25 years, detained at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-66, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 12.06.2024

¶49

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶50

Anu

¶51

¶52

1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-590 009.

¶53

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Chennai.

¶54