High Court · 2025

HCP(MD)No. 380 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 26.08.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMAHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.380 of 2025Kalaivani... Petitionervs.1. The State of Tamil Naadurep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District.Thanjavur.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Tiruchirappalli.Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent made in his proceedings in P.D.No.71 of 2024, dated 14.12.2024 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982 as a Drug Offender and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Subramaniyan, S/o. Ammaiyappan, Male aged about 45 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Page No.1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 380 of 2025Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.K.M. KarunakaranFor Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Subramaniyan, S/o. Ammaiyappan, Male aged about 45 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.71 of 2024, dated 14.12.2024 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition. 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. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 380 of 2025arguments 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 08.11.2024, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 14.12.2024 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.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. He would further submit that it is a case of commercial quantity of 136 Kgs of Kanja and the charge sheet has been filed within a period of 180 days. 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. 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 Page No.3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 380 of 2025of the grounds of the detention order passed by the detaining authority shows that this is only the ground case and there is no adverse case pending against him. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 08.11.2024 and the detention order was passed on 14.12.2024. 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. 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:- "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 Page No.4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 380 of 2025the 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." 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.8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in in P.D.No.71 of 2024, dated 14.12.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Subramaniyan, S/o. Ammaiyappan, aged about 45 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. However, it is made clear that Page No.5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 380 of 2025quashing of the detention order will not entitle to the detenu for grant of bail. The trial Court shall independently consider the bail application taking into consideration of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 26.08.2025 Index: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NotrpTo:1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District.Thanjavur.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Tiruchirappalli.4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madars High Court, Madurai.Page No.6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 380 of 2025A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.ANDR.POORNIMA, J.trpORDER MADE INHCP(MD)No. 380 of 2025DATED : 26.08.2025Page No.7 of 7