Samir Mohammed Vs The Secretary to the Government

Samir Mohammed S/o.Late.Sayed Aelvi, House No.37/2, B.S.Road, VILL Phoenix Bay PO Haddo PS, Abardeen, Port Blair, Andamans, Andaman and Nicobar Islands-744101.

¶10

..Petitioner(s)

¶11

Vs

¶12

The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamilnadu(Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, O/o The Commissioner of Police, (Goondas section) Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.

¶14

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶15

The Inspector of Police, T-21 Kilambakkam Police Station, Guduvancherry, Tambaram.

¶16

..Respondent(s)

¶17

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or order in the nature of a writ and call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by Detention order No.156/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 10.11.2025 served on

¶18

__________ Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

2026:MHC:2835

¶20

HCP No. 2571 of 2025

¶21

13.11.2025 against the petitioner’s son Mohammed Ayaan, aged about 19 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai in pursuance of the detention order and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Hon’ble court and set him at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj for Mr.P.Sidharthan For Respondent(s): Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

¶23

Order

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

¶25

The father of one S. Mohammed Ayaan (detenu), S/o. Samir Mohammed,

¶26

who was detained as a ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’) has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 10.11.2025.

¶27

We have heard Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel for Mr.P.Sidharthan, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for respondents.

¶28

It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 03.10.2025 and he was detained on 10.11.2025. We do not find any satisfactory explanation for the delay in passing the order of detention either in the grounds of detention or in the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent. Hence, we are of the view that the live and proximate link

¶29

__________ Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2026:MHC:2835

¶31

HCP No. 2571 of 2025

¶32

between grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stands snapped.

¶33

In Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura (2022 LiveLaw (SC)

¶34

, a similar issue arose, and the relevant discussion reads as follows:

¶35

“21. 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.”

¶36

Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar Banik's

¶37

case , a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others (2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332), had held that when there is an inordinate delay between the date of arrest/date of proposal and the order of detention, the live and proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detention order on this ground .

¶38

In yet another case i.e., in Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , ((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 detenu would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. In the present case, the delay is more than a month, 39 days to be exact, and unexplained and for this

¶39

__________ Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

2026:MHC:2835

¶41

HCP No. 2571 of 2025

¶42

reason, vitiates the order, rendering it liable to be quashed.

¶43

In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is neither a proximate link between the arrest (03.10.2025) and order of detention (10.11.2025), and nor is there any credible material brought on record by the detaining authority to substantiate his subjective satisfaction. In this light of the matter, we agree that the subjective satisfaction of the authority is vitiated.

¶44

That apart, HCP No. 2608 of 2025 filed by the co-accused has been allowed on 17.07.2026 though on a different grounds.

¶45

In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in BBCDEFGISSSV No.156/2025 dated 10.11.2025, is set aside.

¶46

The detenu, viz., S. Mohammed Ayaan, S/o. Samir Mohammed, aged

¶47

19 years, confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 17-07-2026

¶49

Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes

¶50

SSM

¶51

Note to Registry : Issue Today

¶52

__________ Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

2026:MHC:2835