Allowed

S.Nathiya v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC7 Jul 2025HCP(MD)/1534/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought habeas corpus challenging a detention order passed twenty-one days after arrest due to 'Goonda' classification. The court held the unexplained inordinate delay snapped the requisite link between arrest and detention, invalidating the order.

What did the court decide?

Detention order set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

S.Nathiya Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

H.C.P(MD)No.1534 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P(MD)No.1534 of 2024

S.Nathiya

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its

¶11

Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,

¶12

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

¶13

Fort St. George

¶14

Chennai – 600 009.

¶15

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,

¶16

Trichy District,

¶17

Trichy.

¶18

3.The Superintendent of Prison,

¶19

Central Prison, Trichy. ... Respondents

¶20

Page No.1 of 8

¶21

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

¶22

PRAYER:

¶23

H.C.P(MD)No.1534 of 2024

¶24

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings Cr.M.P.No.17/2024 detention order dated 21.10.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu namely, Vignesh, S/o. Theeselvam @ Subramani, aged about 23 years, (now detained at Central Prison, Trichy) before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr. N. Ananda Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar

¶26

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

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

¶29

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Vignesh, S/o. Theeselvam @ Subramani, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order of detention in Crl.M.P no. 17/2024 dated 21.10.2024 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated

¶30

Page No.2 of 8

¶31

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

¶32

H.C.P(MD)No.1534 of 2024

¶33

under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶34

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.

¶35

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas

¶36

Corpus 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 was arrested on 13.09.2024, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 21.10.2024, i.e., after a lapse of one month. 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.

¶37

Page No.3 of 8

¶38

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

¶39

H.C.P(MD)No.1534 of 2024

¶40

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. He would further 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.

¶41

The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 13.09.2024 and the detention order was passed on 21.10.2024. This shows an inordinate delay 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.

¶42

In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of

¶43

Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333 , when there was an

¶44

Page No.4 of 8

¶45

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

¶46

H.C.P(MD)No.1534 of 2024

¶47

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:-

¶48

"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."

¶49

Page No.5 of 8

¶50

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

¶51

H.C.P(MD)No.1534 of 2024

¶52

In view of the above, as pointed out by the learned counsel

¶53

for the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order.

¶54

8 . In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Crl.M.P No.17/2024 dated 21.10.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vignesh, aged about 23 years, S/o. Theeselvam @ Subramani, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶55

[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]

¶56

07.07.2025

¶57

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No rm

¶58

Page No.6 of 8

¶59

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

¶60

H.C.P(MD)No.1534 of 2024

¶61

To:

¶62

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George

¶63

Chennai – 600 009.

¶64

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

¶65

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.

¶66

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

¶67

Page No.7 of 8

¶68

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

¶69

H.C.P(MD)No.1534 of 2024

¶70

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

¶71

¶72

ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.1534 of 2024

¶73

DATED : 07.07.2025

¶74

Page No.8 of 8

¶75

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

S.Nathiya v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Nathiya v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

R.Velammal Vs The State of Tamilnadu

R.Soundarya Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, (Madurai Range)

S.Avudaiyatchi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Meenakshisundaram Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

B.Soundararajan Vs The Member of Secretary

J.M.Ismail Vs The State of Tamilnadu