Allowed

Purushothaman v. the State of Tamilnadu, Represented by

Madras HC23 Feb 2024HCP/306/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a detention order under Article 226 citing an unexplained delay of over two months between arrest and order passage. The court held this delay snapped the subjective link of detention and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 06.10.2023 set aside; detenu Ramkumar directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in another case.

Purushothaman Vs the State of Tamilnadu… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.306 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 23.02.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

H.C.P.No.306 of 2024

¶9

Purusothaman … Petitioner / Grandfather of the detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶12

The Commissioner of police, Avadi City, Avadi.

¶13

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai

¶14

The Inspector of Police, M-5, Ennore Police Station, Chennai.

¶15

….Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

H.C.P.No.306 of 2024

¶20

detention order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.BCDFGSSV.No.214/2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce petitioner's grandson namely Ramkumar, Son of Nagaraj, aged about 22 years, who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal as Goonda before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶21

For petitioner : Mr.M. Vinoth

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Aravind.C

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioner, who is the grandfather of the detenu Ramkumar, aged

¶26

22 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention

¶27

order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 06.10.2023, in No.214/BCDFGISSSV/2023, slapped on his grandson, branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.

¶28

2/7

¶29

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

¶30

H.C.P.No.306 of 2024

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶32

Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned

¶33

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

¶34

In the instant case, admittedly, the detenu was arrested on 01.09.2023 and the detention order was passed on 06.10.2023. In a similar case, where there was a delay in passing the detention order on 18.06.2022 after the arrest of the detenu on 08.04.2022, this Court in HCP No.1388 of

¶35

2022 [Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332] , held as follows:

¶36

“6.... As between 08.04.2022 and 18.06.2022, it is well over two months and given the facts and circumstances of the instant case, particularly ground and the adverse cases, we find that this live and proximate link between grounds and purpose of detention had in fact snapped.”

¶37

3/7

¶38

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

¶39

H.C.P.No.306 of 2024

¶40

This Court, in the said order, drew inspiration from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 , though in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not directly deal with the issue of delay in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are extracted hereunder:-

¶41

“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.”

¶42

In yet another case i.e., in Nagaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu ,

¶43

reported in (2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428 , this Court 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.

¶44

4/7

¶45

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

¶46

H.C.P.No.306 of 2024

¶47

Therefore, we are of the view that in view of the unexplained delay in passing the order of detention after the arrest of the detenu, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶48