Allowed

Mohamed Ali v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC11 Dec 2024HCP(MD)/1247/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition challenged a goonda detention order based on a single highway robbery case registered in May 2023 while the detenue was arrested only in March 2024 and detained in April 2024. Citing the Supreme Court's proximity test, the court held the live-link had snapped and set aside the detention order.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 13.04.2024 in M.H.S.Confdl.No.63/2024 set aside; habeas corpus petition allowed.

Mohamed Ali Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD)No.1247 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

H.C.P.(MD)No.1247 of 2024

¶7

Mohammed Ali ... Petitioner / Father of the Detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

¶13

5.The Inspector of Police, Moondradaippu Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

H.C.P.(MD)No.1247 of 2024

¶18

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 13.04.2024 in M.H.S.Confdl.No.63/2024 against the son of the petitioner Manasir aged 34 years, Son of Mohammed Ali who is place under detention at Central Prison, Palayamkottai and set aside the detention order and direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatachalam

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Order of the court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)

¶23

Heard both sides.

¶24

The petitioner's son was detained as goonda vide order dated

¶25

13.04.2024 by the second respondent. In the grounds of detention, there

¶26

is a reference to only one case in which the detenue was involved. It is not in dispute that the occurrence took place on 30.05.2023. It is a case of highway robbery. Crime No.71 of 2023 was registered on the file of

¶27

2/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

H.C.P.(MD)No.1247 of 2024

¶30

the Moondradaippu Police Station. The detenue was however arrested only on 16.03.2024. The detention order dated 13.04.2024 has been passed in respect of an occurrence that took place on 30.05.2023. It has been consistently held that there must be proximate and live-link between the event that gave rise to an apprehension that there would be breach of public order and the date of passing of the detention order.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew out attention to the decision reported in ( 1989) 4 SCC 741 (T.A.Abdul Rahan Vs. State of Kerala) . Paragraph Nos.10 & 11 of the said decision read as follows:-

¶32

“10. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarised thus: The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the Court

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/6

¶35

H.C.P.(MD)No.1247 of 2024

¶36

has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the Court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case.

¶37

Similarly when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of order of detention and the date of securing the arrest of the detenu, such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner.”

¶38

4.The ratio laid down in the above case squarely applies to the case on hand. We are more than satisfied that the proximate and live-link

¶39

stood snapped in this case. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this petition is set aside. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.

¶40

(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.P. J.,) 11.12.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

4/6

¶43

H.C.P.(MD)No.1247 of 2024

¶44

To:-

¶45

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶46

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tirunelveli District.

¶47

3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

¶48

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

¶49

5.The Inspector of Police, Moondradaippu Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶50

6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

5/6

¶53

H.C.P.(MD)No.1247 of 2024

¶54

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and R.POORNIMA, J.

¶55

rmi

¶56

H.C.P.(MD)No.1247 of 2024

¶57

11.12.2024

¶58

6/6

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mohamed Ali v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Ali v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhakar Vs The Inspector of Police

Henrilouise Vs The Inspector of Police

Layo Vs The Addl Chief Secretary to Government

Arunkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Kalimuthu Vs The Inspector of Police

Muthulakshmi Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by