Allowed

T.Suganya v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC25 Jul 2024HCP/450/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged preventive detention of her husband under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act as a 'Goonda'. The detention order was passed over 50 days after arrest with no explanation. Relying on precedent on snapped live link, the court set aside the detention order and directed release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 03.02.2024 set aside; detenu Thaniga @ Thanigaivel directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

T.Suganya Vs the Secretary to Government — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.450 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.07.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

H.C.P.No.450 of 2024

T.Suganya

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶13

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

¶14

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem Salem.

¶15

5.The Inspector of Police, Siva Kanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 7

¶18

HCP.No.450 of 2024

¶19

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 order of detention passed in Rc.No.263/2023/M6-D.O.No.05/2024 dated 03.02.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent and set aside the same and directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband namely Thaniga @ Thanigaive l, M/41 years, S/o.Mani, before this Court, now confined in Central Prison, Salem and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thenrajan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Thaniga @ Thanigaive l, Male, aged about 41 years, S/o.Mani, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 03.02.2024 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].

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 7

¶25

HCP.No.450 of 2024

¶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 12.12.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 03.02.2024. 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

reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813' , when there was an inordinate delay

¶33

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

¶34

hereunder:-

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 7

¶36

HCP.No.450 of 2024

¶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

6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar

¶39

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

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 7

¶41

HCP.No.450 of 2024

¶42

quashed the detention order on this ground .

¶43

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

¶44

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

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 03.02.2024 in Rc.No.263/2023/M6-D.O.No.05/2024 , is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thaniga @ Thanigaive l, Male, aged about 41 years, S/o.Mani , is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any

¶46

other case.

¶47

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 25.07.2024

¶48

Index: Yes/No Sni Note:- Registry shall forthwith return the booklet containing the materials, on which, the Detaining Authority has placed

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 7

¶50

HCP.No.450 of 2024

¶51

reliance, to the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner with due acknowledgment.