Allowed

Kumar v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC26 Jun 2024HCP/517/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the affidavit order passed against his son on grounds of delay. The court held that the inordinate and unexplained delay between arrest and the detention order snapped the link between grounds and purpose, leading to the quashing of the order and release of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

Detention order quashed and detenu set at liberty forthwith unless confinement is required in connection with any other case.

Kumar Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.517 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.517 of 2024

¶7

Kumar

¶8

... Petitioner/father of the detenu

¶9

Vs.

¶10

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

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai District.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, F1-Chindatripet Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶14

Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

HCP.No.517 of 2024

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in 116/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 17.02.2024 against the petitioner's son Prasanth @ Lal, S/o.Kumar, aged 27 years, now confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu viz., Prasanth @ Lal, S/o.Kumar, aged 27 years, now confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 17.02.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of

¶22

Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

HCP.No.517 of 2024

¶24

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].

¶25

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

¶26

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶27

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned

¶28

counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.

¶29

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 08.01.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 17.02.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶30

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

¶31

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,

¶32

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

¶33

HCP.No.517 of 2024

¶34

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

¶35

hereunder:-

¶36

“ 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. ”

¶37

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

¶38

HCP.No.517 of 2024

¶39

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, had quashed the detention order on this ground .

¶40

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.

¶41

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 17.02.2024 in No.116/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the

¶42

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

¶43

HCP.No.517 of 2024

¶44

Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Prasanth @ Lal,

¶45

S/o.Kumar, aged 27 years, now confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Anu

¶49

¶50

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.

¶51

4.The Inspector of Police, F1-Chindatripet Police Station, Chennai.

¶52

Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

HCP.No.517 of 2024

¶54

5.The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai

¶55

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶56

Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis