Allowed

B.Ajay v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC7 Jun 2024HCP/417/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging a Goondas Act detention order on the ground of inordinate delay in passing detention after arrest. Relying on precedent that unexplained delay snaps the live and proximate link, the Court quashed the detention order and ordered release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order CPT No.03/2024 dated 06.01.2024 set aside; detenu Ajay directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless confinement required in any other case.

B.Ajay Vs the Secretary to Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.417 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.417 of 2024

Mr.B.Ajay

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶14

5.The Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Railway Station, Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents

¶15

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

Page 1 of 8

HCP.No.417 of 2024

PRAYER:

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling upon the production of the records relating to the detention order dated 06.01.2024 made in detention order Memo CPT No.03/2024 passed by the second respondent herein quash and same and direct the respondents to produce me before this Hon'ble Court and set me at liberty, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶20

For Petitioner For Respondents

¶21

: Mr.A.Rameshmanikandan

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioner, aged about 22 years, S/o.Bindu Murugan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 06.01.2024 slapped on him, branding him as "GOONDA" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

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

¶28

HCP.No.417 of 2024

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶32

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.

¶33

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 28.10.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 06.01.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶34

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

¶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

¶36

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

¶37

HCP.No.417 of 2024

¶38

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:-

¶39

“ 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. ”

¶40

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

¶41

HCP.No.417 of 2024

¶42

6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar

¶43

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 .

¶44

7. In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' ,

¶45

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.

¶46

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second

¶47

respondent on 06.01.2024 in CPT No.03/2024, is hereby set aside and the

¶48

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

¶49

HCP.No.417 of 2024

¶50

Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ajay, aged about 22 years, S/o.Bindu Murugan, i s directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶54

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶55

3.The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶56

4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.