Allowed

Dhanalakshmi v. State Rep by

Madras HC6 Jun 2024HCP/398/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Madras quashed a detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act due to an inordinate and unexplained delay between the detenu's arrest and the issuance of the order, ruling that the delay severed the link between detention grounds and purpose.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 04.01.2024 is set aside; the Habeas Corpus petition is allowed; the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless confinement is required for another case.

Dhanalakshmi Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.398 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.No.398 of 2024

¶7

Dhanalakshmi

¶8

... Petitioner/mother of the detenu

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State rep. by

¶11

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Commissionarate.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police (L&O), M-4, Redhills Police Station, Chennai.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

HCP.No.398 of 2024

¶18

PRAYER:

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 04.01.2024 passed by the second respondent in No.02/BCDFGISSSV/2024 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenue, Thiru. Veeraragavan, S/o.Saravanan, Male, aged about 27 years, now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.Senthil Kumar

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu viz., Veeraragavan, S/o.Saravanan, aged about 27 years, confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention

¶25

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

¶26

HCP.No.398 of 2024

¶27

order passed by the second respondent dated 04.01.2024 slapped on her son, 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].

¶28

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

¶29

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶30

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.

¶31

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 03.12.2023 and

¶32

thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 04.01.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶33

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

¶34

HCP.No.398 of 2024

¶35

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

¶36

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 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

¶38

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

¶39

HCP.No.398 of 2024

¶40

and circumstances of each case. ”

¶41

6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar

¶42

Banik's case , a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gomathi

¶43

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 .

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

HCP.No.398 of 2024

¶47

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

¶48

on 04.01.2024 in No.02/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the

¶49

Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Veeraragavan, S/o.Saravanan, aged about 27 years, confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶50

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

¶51

06.06.2024

¶52

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

¶53

Anu

¶54

¶55

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶56

2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Commissionarate.

¶57

3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶58

Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

HCP.No.398 of 2024

¶60

4.The Inspector of Police (L&O), M-4, Redhills Police Station, Chennai.

¶61

5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai