Wife detained as a Drug Offender under Tamil Nadu Act 14/82; detention order passed about five weeks after arrest without explanation. Following precedent on inordinate delay snapping the live and proximate link between grounds and purpose of detention, the court quashed the detention order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
H.C.P.No.869 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.07.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.869 of 2024
Rubel Molla
.. Petitioner/
Husband of the detenue
Versus
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed unde r Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the
1/7
H.C.P.No.869 of 2024
entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's wife Sarjina Khatun, W/o.Rubella Molla, Female, aged about 28 years, is presently lodged in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal at Chennai and has been detained under Act 14/82 as a "Drug Offender" vide detention order dated 15.03.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein, made in BDFGISSSV No.33/2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenue before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajavelu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein is the husband of the detenue viz., Sarjina Khatun, C/o.Rubel Molla, aged about 28 years, confined at Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 15.03.2024 slapped on his wife, branding her as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
2/7
H.C.P.No.869 of 2024
Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
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.
4. In the instant case, the detenue was arrested on 09.02.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 15.03.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
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
3/7
H.C.P.No.869 of 2024
grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the detenue. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:-
“ 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. ”
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
4/7
H.C.P.No.869 of 2024
proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detention order on this ground .
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 detenue 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 detenue, the detention order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 15.03.2024 in BCDFGISSSV No.33/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Sarjina Khatun, C/o.Rubel Molla, aged about 28 years, confined at Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
5/7
H.C.P.No.869 of 2024
10.07.2024
Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no grs
To
Chennai - 600 100.
6/7
H.C.P.No.869 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.
grs
H.C.P.No.869 of 2024
10.07.2024
7/7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the unexplained delay of over a month between the detenue's arrest and the passing of the detention order snaps the live link and renders the detention invalid?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of TripuraRelied on¶5
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813
Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and OthersRelied on¶6
2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332 · Who else cites this
Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶7
(2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rubel Molla
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City
The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal
Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Pallikaranai
M.S.Ramesh
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
