Allowed

Nagama v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Madras HC10 Jun 2024HCP/459/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking habeas corpus and quashing of a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act passed against her son. The Court allowed the petition, holding that the inordinate delay between arrest and passing the order snapped the live link, invalidating the detention.

What did the court decide?

Detention order set aside; Habeas Corpus Petition allowed; Detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required for another case.

Nagama Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

H.C.P.No.459 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.No.459 of 2024

¶7

Nagama ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009

¶10

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District Tiruppur 3.The Superintendent of Police Tiruppur District 4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Coimbatore Coimbatore District

¶11

5.The Inspector of Police Palladam Police Station Tiruppur District ... Respondents

¶12

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

¶13

PRAYER:

¶14

H.C.P.No.459 of 2024

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the Detention Order vide Cr.M.P.No.64/GOONDA/2023 dated 17.12.2023, passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely Sivakumar, S/o.Subramani, aged 26 years, (who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore), before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arun Kumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu viz. Sivakumar, aged about 26 years, S/o.Subramani, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 17.12.2023 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

¶20

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

¶21

H.C.P.No.459 of 2024

¶22

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

¶23

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶24

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.

¶25

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 13.10.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 17.12.2023. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

H.C.P.No.459 of 2024

¶29

grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the detenu. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:-

¶30

“ 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. ”

¶31

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

¶32

SCC OnLine Mad 6332' , had held that when there is an inordinate delay

¶33

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

¶34

H.C.P.No.459 of 2024

¶35

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 .

¶36

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.

¶37

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent on 17.12.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.64/GOONDA/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sivakuma r, aged about 26 years, S/o.Subramani, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶38

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

¶39

H.C.P.No.459 of 2024

¶40

10.06.2024

¶41

kas

¶42

Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis