Allowed

K.Thennarasu v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC24 Jun 2025HCP(MD)/1343/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging a Goonda detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The court held that an inordinate, unexplained two-month delay between arrest and detention order snapped the live and proximate link, set aside the detention order and directed release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order No.55/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 14.09.2024 quashed; detenu Tamilarasan directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

K.Thennarasu Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

HCP(MD)No.1343 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1343 of 2024

K. Thennarasu

... Petitioner

vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.

¶12

3.The Superintendent, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent made in his proceedings in No. 55/BCDFGISSSV/ 2024, dated 14.09.2024 and quash the same and set petitioner's brother by name “Tamilarasan, S/o. Kathigaiselvan” aged about 20 years” at liberty from Central Prison, Madurai.

¶15

Page No.1 of 7

¶16

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

¶17

HCP(MD)No.1343 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.C. Prithiviraj For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. ]

¶21

The petitioner herein is the brother of the detenu viz., Tamilarasan, S/o. Karthigaiselvan, aged about 30 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in his proceedings in No.55/BCDFGISSSV/ 2024, dated 14.09.2024 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶22

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶23

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus

¶24

petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that there is an inordinate delay between the arrest of the detenu and passing the impugned detention order. In this case, the detenu Page No.2 of 7

¶25

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

¶26

HCP(MD)No.1343 of 2024

¶27

was arrested on 01.07.2024, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 14.09.2024 i.e., after a lapse of two months. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the same. He further submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.

¶28

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though there was a delay in passing the impugned detention order, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

¶29

5. Though it has been stated by the respondents that collection of details has caused the delay in passing the impugned detention order, a perusal of the grounds of the detention order passed by the detaining authority shows that this is only the ground case and there is one adverse case pending against him. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 01.07.2024 and the detention order was passed on 14.09.2024. This shows an inordinate delay

¶30

Page No.3 of 7

¶31

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

¶32

HCP(MD)No.1343 of 2024

¶33

in passing the detention order, which is also unexplained. The live and proximate link between the arrest of the detenu and the need for passing the order of detention has snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

¶34

6. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333 , when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order unless such delay is satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

¶35

"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

¶36

Page No.4 of 7

¶37

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

¶38

HCP(MD)No.1343 of 2024

¶39

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."

¶40

7. In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order.

¶41

8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in proceeding No.55/BCDFGISSSV/ 2024, dated 14.09.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Tamilarasan, son of Karthigaiselvan, aged about 30 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶42

[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 24.06.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No trp

¶43

Page No.5 of 7

¶44

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

¶45

HCP(MD)No.1343 of 2024

¶46

To:

¶47

The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

¶48

2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.

¶49

3.The Superintendent, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.

¶50

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

¶51

Page No.6 of 7

¶52

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

¶53

HCP(MD)No.1343 of 2024

¶54

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.

¶55

trp

¶56

ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.1343 of 2024

¶57

DATED : 24.06.2025

¶58

Page No.7 of 7

¶59

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

K.Thennarasu v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Thennarasu v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

Meena Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Ani Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Sheebana Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Nattar Devi Vs The Home Secretary

Mary Vs The Home Secretary

Alankarakumar @ Ramesh Vs The Inspector of Police