Allowed

Bhuvaneswari v. the State of Tamilnadu, Represented by

Madras HC12 Jun 2024HCP/328/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged a Goonda detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, citing inordinate unexplained delay between her husband's arrest on 15.11.2023 and the detention order dated 21.12.2023. Relying on Supreme Court and Madras High Court precedents on snapping of the live link, the Division Bench quashed the detention and ordered release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 21.12.2023 set aside; detenu S.Vinith @ Vinithkumar directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless confinement required in another case.

Bhuvaneswari Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Represented by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.328 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.328 of 2024

¶7

Bhuvaneswari

¶8

... Petitioner/wife of the detenu

¶9

Vs.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, T-10 Manimangalam Police Station, Tambaram City Crime No.406/2023

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

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

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

HCP.No.328 of 2024

¶18

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 dated 21.12.2023 passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.52/2023, GOONDA/TAMBARAM CITY/2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely S.Vinith @ Vinithkumar, son of Sampath, aged about 26 years, No.14, Thulukkanathamman Koil Street, Ambedkar Nagar, Guduvanchery, Chengalpattu District, who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982) before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶19

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Subadra Devi For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu viz., S.Vinith @ Vinithkumar, son of Sampath, aged about 26 years, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, has come forward with this petition challenging the

¶23

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

¶24

HCP.No.328 of 2024

¶25

detention order passed by the second respondent dated 21.12.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of 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

¶27

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶28

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned

¶29

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

¶30

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 15.11.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 21.12.2023. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

HCP.No.328 of 2024

¶34

reported in

¶35

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 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.328 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' , 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.

¶42

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 21.12.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.52/2023, is hereby set aside and the

¶43

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

¶44

HCP.No.328 of 2024

¶45

Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., S.Vinith @ Vinithkumar, son of Sampath, aged about 26 years, detained at Central

¶46

Prison, Puzhal, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶47

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