Madras High Court
Shaik Abdullah vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 March, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.348 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR
H.C.P.No.348 of 2025
Shaik Abdullah ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Tiruvarur Town Police Station,
Tiruvarur District.
5.The Superintendent,
Central Prison-Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:50:23 pm )
H.C.P.No.348 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order in COC.No.43/2024, dated 23.10.2024 passed by the 2nd
respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set side the same and
direct the respondent to produce petitioner's son namely Mahadeer
Mohamed, S/o.Shaik Abdullah, aged about 24 years, now confined in
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set petitioner's son
Mahadeer Mohamed, S/o.Shaik Abdullah, aged 24 years, the detenu herein
at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Karthik
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J.) The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu namely Mahadeer Mohamed, S/o.Shaik Abdullah, aged about 24 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:50:23 pm ) H.C.P.No.348 of 2025 second respondent dated 23.10.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 21.09.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 23.10.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura', reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', when there was an inordinate delay Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:50:23 pm ) H.C.P.No.348 of 2025 from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the detenu. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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.” Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:50:23 pm ) H.C.P.No.348 of 2025
6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332', had held that when there is an inordinate delay from the date of arrest/date of proposal till 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.
7. In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', reported in '(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. Hence, in view of the unexplained and inordinate delay in passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenu, the detention order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 23.10.2024 in C.O.C.No.43/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:50:23 pm ) H.C.P.No.348 of 2025 Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mahadeer Mohamed, S/o.Shaik Abdullah, aged about 24 years, now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]
24.03.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:50:23 pm )
H.C.P.No.348 of 2025
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
4.The Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur Town Police Station, Tiruvarur District.
5.The Superintendent, Central Prison-Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli.
6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
7.The Joint Secretary Public(Law & Order), Chennai – 600 009.
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:50:23 pm ) H.C.P.No.348 of 2025 M.S.RAMESH, J.
and N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Sni H.C.P.No.348 of 2025 24.03.2025 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:50:23 pm )