Allowed

Saranya v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Madras HC7 Jun 2024HCP/406/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged her husband's preventive detention as a drug offender under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Relying on precedent that an inordinate unexplained delay between arrest and detention order snaps the live link, the Division Bench set aside the detention order and directed the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 05.01.2024 set aside; detenu Murugesan directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless confined in any other case.

Saranya Vs the Additional Chief Secretary — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.406 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

H.C.P.No.406 of 2024

Tmt.Saranya

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.

¶12

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, E-4, Kattur Police Station, Chennai.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the

¶16

Page 1 of 8

¶17

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

¶18

HCP.No.406 of 2024

¶19

order of detention passed by the Second Respondent herein and made in BCDFGISSSV.No.4/2024 dated 05.01.2024, and to set aside the same and directing Third Respondent to produce the detenue, my husband Murugesan, aged 33 years, S/o.Velayutham now confined in central Prison, Salem before this Hon'ble Court and thereby setting him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner For Respondents

¶21

: Mr.B.Kalaiarasan

¶22

: Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

¶23

ORDER

¶24

M.S.RAMESH, J. AND

¶25

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶26

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu Murugesan, aged about 33 years, S/o.Velayutham, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 05.01.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "DRUG OFFENDER" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,

¶27

Page 2 of 8

¶28

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

¶29

HCP.No.406 of 2024

¶30

Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶31

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

¶32

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶33

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.

¶34

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 18.08.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 05.01.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶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

¶37

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

¶38

HCP.No.406 of 2024

¶39

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:-

¶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

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

Page 4 of 8

¶44

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

¶45

HCP.No.406 of 2024

¶46

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 .

¶47

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.

¶48

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 05.01.2024 in No.04/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Murugesan, aged about 33 years, S/o.Velayutham, is directed to be set at liberty

¶49

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

¶50

HCP.No.406 of 2024

¶51

forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶52

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 07.06.2024

¶53

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Tsg To 1.The Additional Chief Secrtary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶54

2.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.

¶55

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. 4.The Inspector of Police, E-4, Kattur Police Station, Chennai.

¶56

Page 6 of 8

¶57

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

¶58

HCP.No.406 of 2024

¶59

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.