Ramakrishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu represented by

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, or any other appropriate order or direction, calling for the records of the 2^nd Respondent pertaining to the order made in 919/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, Dated 10-11-2025 in detaining the detenue under

¶18

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

¶19

2026:MHC:3085

¶20

HCP No. 564 of 2026

¶21

the Tamilnadu Act 14/1982 as a brand of DRUG OFFENDER and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue, namely Lakesh Son of Ravikanth, aged 19 years who is detained at the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Karthick For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Amarnath Counsel for Government of Tamil nadu (Criminal Side)

¶23

Order

¶24

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

¶25

We have heard Mr.S.Karthick, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶26

Mr.A.Amarnath, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), learned counsel for the respondents.

¶27

The uncle of one Lakesh (detenu) S/o Ravikanth, who was detained as a Drug Offender under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short ‘Act’) has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 10.11.2025.

¶28

It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 09.10.2025 and he was detained on 10.11.2025. We

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

2026:MHC:3085

¶32

HCP No. 564 of 2026

¶33

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

¶34

In Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813) , 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

5 . 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

6 . 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

¶39

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

¶40

2026:MHC:3085

¶41

HCP No. 564 of 2026

¶42

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, and unexplained and for this reason, vitiates the order, rendering it liable to be quashed.

¶43

In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that

¶44

there is neither a proximate link between the arrest (09.10.2025) 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.

¶45

Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.919/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 10.11.2025 is set aside.

¶46

The detenu, viz., Lakesh, S/o.Ravikanth, male aged 19 years, now 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.

¶47

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 27-07-2026

¶48

Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes

¶49

sl

¶50

Note to Registry : Issue Today

¶51

To

¶52

1. The Secretary to Government