Allowed

Nagalakshmi v. the Secretary to the Government

Preventive detention – Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982

Madras HC23 Feb 2024HCP/309/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus plea against a Goonda detention order. The Court found the two-month unexplained delay between the detenu's arrest and the detention order had snapped the live link between grounds and purpose of detention, quashed the detention order and directed the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 18.05.2023 in Cr.M.P. No.21/Goonda/2023 quashed; detenu Mathivanan to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

Nagalakshmi Vs the Secretary to the Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.309 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.309 of 2024

¶9

Nagalakshmi … Petitioner / Sister of the detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

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

¶12

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶14

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶15

State represented by:The Inspector of Police Uthiyur Police Station, Tiruppur District ….Respondents

¶16

1/7

¶17

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

¶18

H.C.P.No.309 of 2024

¶19

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 18.05.2023 in Cr.M.P. No.21/Goonda/2023 against the petitioner's brother Mathivanan, M/25 years, Son of Chinnusamy, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For petitioner : Mr.Saranraj

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner, sister of the detenu Mathivanan, aged 25 years, has

¶25

come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 18.05.2023, in Cr.M.P. No.21/Goonda/2023, slapped on her brother, branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

H.C.P.No.309 of 2024

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶30

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶31

Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned

¶32

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

¶33

In the instant case, admittedly, the detenu was arrested on 19.03.2023 and the detention order was passed on 18.05.2023. 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

¶34

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

¶35

“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.”

¶36

3/7

¶37

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

¶38

H.C.P.No.309 of 2024

¶39

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:-

¶40

“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.”

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

4/7

¶44

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

¶45

H.C.P.No.309 of 2024

¶46

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.

¶47