Allowed¶36

Nagalakshmi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC6 Jan 2025HCP(MD)/1350/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nagalakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu; H.C.P.(MD) No.1350 of 2024; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; 06.01.2025; G.R.Swaminathan & R.Poornima JJ.; habeas corpus; Article 226; preventive detention; Drug Offender; Detention Order No.70/2024 dated 02.07.2024; District Magistrate and District Collector Dindigul; detenue Mahankumar S/o.Jayapal; ground case Crime No.695/2024; arrest on 20.05.2024; 43-day delay between arrest and detention order; live and proximate link snapped; subjective satisfaction doubted; Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura (2022 Livelaw (SC) 813); detention order quashed; detenue set at liberty forthwith; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Detention Order No.70/2024 quashed; detenue Mahankumar S/o.Jayapal to be produced and set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise warranted by law.

Nagalakshmi Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Detention Order No.70/2024 quashed; detenue Mahankumar S/o.Jayapal to be produced and set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise warranted by law.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention of the petitioner's husband (Mahankumar) as a “Drug Offender” under Detention Order No.70/2024 is bad in law because of the 43-day gap between his arrest on 20.05.2024 and the detention order dated 02.07.2024, i.e., whether the “live and proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention had been snapped.

¶26

Court's answer

There was an inordinate delay between the date of arrest and the date of detention; the “live and proximate link” between the two got snapped; therefore the detention order is quashed on this ground (applying the principle of Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura relied upon by the Court).

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The detenue shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise warranted by law.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus – Wife petitions against detention of her husband as “Drug Offender” under Detention Order No.70/2024 dated 02.07.2024 passed by the District Magistrate & District Collector, Dindigul (petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) – Detenue Mahankumar S/o.Jayapal arrested on 20.05.2024 in ground case (Crime No.695/2024) – Gap of 43 days between date of arrest and date of passing of detention order – Relying on Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, (2022 Livelaw (SC) 813), where the Supreme Court held that unreasonable, unexplained delay between the order of detention/actual arrest and the passing of the detention order throws considerable doubt on the genuineness of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and snaps the “live and proximate link” – This Court found the link snapped due to the inordinate delay and quashed the detention order on that ground – Detenue to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise warranted by law – Habeas Corpus Petition allowed (G.R.Swaminathan & R.Poornima, JJ., 06.01.2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court).

¶1

H.C.P(MD)No.1350 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.1350 of 2024

¶7

Nagalakshmi ... Petitioner / Wife of the detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George,

¶10

Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

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

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Dindigul, (Crime No.695/2024)

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,

¶14

Madurai.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

H.C.P(MD)No.1350 of 2024

¶19

PRAYER :

¶20

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 relating to the detention order of the second respondent in Detention Order No.70 / 2024 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue namely Mahankumar S/o.Jayapal aged a bout 32 years now detained as “Drug Offender” at Central Prison, Madurai and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Palmurugan

¶22

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

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard both sides.

¶25

2. The petitioner's husband was detained as “Drug Offender” vide

¶26

order dated 02.07.2024 by the second respondent. The detenue was arrested on 20.05.2024 in the ground case. There is a gap of 43 days

¶27

between the date of arrest and the date of passing of the detention order.

¶28

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs.

¶29

State of Tripura reported in (2022 Livelaw (SC) 813) held as follows:-

¶30

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

¶31

2/4

¶32

H.C.P(MD)No.1350 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

4. In this case, there is an inordinate delay from the date of arrest till the date of detention. The “live and proximate link” between the two got snapped. The detention order is quashed on this ground. The

¶35

detenue shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise warranted by law.

¶36

5. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.

¶37

(G.R.S., J.) (R.P., J.) 06.01.2025

¶38

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi

¶39

NOTE:Issue Order Copy on 07.01.2025

¶40

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