Madras High Court
T.Panju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 October, 2023
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
H.C.P(MD)No.757 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.10.2023
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
H.C.P(MD)No.757 of 2023
T.Panju .. Petitioner
vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Theni District,
Theni.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records
connected with the detention order passed in detention order No.38 of 2023
dated 05.06.2023 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the
same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu
namely petitioner's husband ie., Thiruppathi, aged about 42 years, son of
Rajappa, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
H.C.P(MD)No.757 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by the wife of the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 05.06.2023 bearing Detention Order No.38 of 2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience]. To be noted, sponsoring authority has not been arrayed as a respondent but we find that Station House Officer of Rayappanpatti Police Station is the sponsoring authority [hereinafter 'Sponsoring Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned preventive detention order has been made by second respondent.
2. Impugned preventive detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 H.C.P(MD)No.757 of 2023 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.
3. There is no adverse case. This solitary case which is the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.76 of 2023 on the file of Rayappanpatti Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147 and 363 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and subsequently altered into Sections 147, 120-B, 294(b), 342, 323, 364(A) and 506(ii) of IPC and again altered into Sections 147, 120-B, 294(b), 342, 323, 364(A) and 506(ii) of IPC and 174 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)' [hereinafter 'CrPC' for the sake of brevity and clarity] and again altered into Sections 147, 120-B, 294(b), 342, 304(ii), 364(A) and 506(ii) of IPC and 174 of CrPC. Considering the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the case.
4. Mr.N.Pragalathan, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 H.C.P(MD)No.757 of 2023
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as the date of surrender in the ground case is 17.04.2023 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 05.06.2023.
6. Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time was consumed in this exercise. Considering the facts / circumstances of the case on hand and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable.
7. We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik's case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. To be noted, Banik case arose under 'Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'PIT NDPS Act' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, wherein after considering a proposal by a Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 'live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping' point should be examined on a case to case basis. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 H.C.P(MD)No.757 of 2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is 'unreasonable delay' and the other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay.
8. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/733, Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary to the Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1110, N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:
1159 and a series of similar orders in HCP cases.
9. To be noted, the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is a solitary case viz., Crime No.76 of 2023 on the file of Rayappanpatti Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147 and 363 of IPC and subsequently altered into Sections 147, 120(b), 294(b), 342, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 H.C.P(MD)No.757 of 2023 323, 364(A) and 506(ii) of IPC and again altered into Sections 147, 120-B, 294(b), 342, 323, 364(A) and 506(ii) of IPC and 174 of CrPC and again altered into Sections 147, 120-B, 294(b), 342, 304(ii), 364(A) and 506(ii) of IPC and 174 of CrPC.
10. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
11. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 05.06.2023 bearing reference Detention Order No.38 of 2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Thiruppathi, aged 42 years, son of Thiru.Rajappa, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 16.10.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No ps P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 H.C.P(MD)No.757 of 2023 To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 H.C.P(MD)No.757 of 2023 M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., ps H.C.P(MD)No.757 of 2023 16.10.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8