Allowed

P.Archana v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Madras HC26 Jun 2024HCP/472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court Bench quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act vide an Art 226 Petition. The Court held that an inordinate delay between the date of arrest (Jan 1, 2024) and the detention order (Feb 15, 2024) snapped the live and proximate link, rendering the order invalid. The detenue was directed to be set at liberty.

What did the court decide?

Detention order set aside; habeas corpus petition allowed; detenue directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless confinement required in another case.

P.Archana Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.472 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.No.472 of 2024

¶7

P.Archana

¶8

... Petitioner/wife of the detenu

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector of Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶12

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

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.

¶14

5.The Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents

¶15

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

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

HCP.No.472 of 2024

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 15.02.2024 in his office ref S.C.No.03/2024 against the petitioner's husband by name Prakash S/o. Perumal, aged about 24 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem, Salem District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kannadasan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu viz., Prakash S/o. Perumal, aged about 24 years, confined at Central Prison, Salem, Salem District, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 15.02.2024 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].

¶22

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

¶23

HCP.No.472 of 2024

¶24

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

¶25

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶26

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.

¶27

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 01.01.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 15.02.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

hereunder:-

¶31

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

¶32

HCP.No.472 of 2024

¶33

“ 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. ”

¶34

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 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,

¶35

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

¶36

HCP.No.472 of 2024

¶37

had quashed the detention order on this ground .

¶38

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.

¶39

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 15.02.2024 in S.C.No.03/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Prakash S/o. Perumal, aged about 24 years, confined at Central Prison, Salem, Salem District , is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶40

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 26.06.2024

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

HCP.No.472 of 2024

¶44

Anu

¶45

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