Madras High Court
B.Yogarani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 April, 2023
Bench: M.Sundar, M.Nirmal Kumar
H.C.P.No.2375 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
H.C.P.No.2375 of 2022
B.Yogarani .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
3.The District Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Tiruchengode Town Police Station,
Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem. .. Respondents
Page Nos.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2375 of 2022
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection
with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings
C.M.P.No.37/Goonda/2022[M1] dated 29.10.2022 against the petitioner's
son Mohanraj, aged 25 years, son of Balan, who is confined at Central
Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce
the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.,
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkatesan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 29.10.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.37/GOONDA/2022[M1]' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
Page Nos.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2375 of 2022
2.Impugned 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 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 are two adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.264/2022 on the file of Tiruchengode Town Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 395 and 397 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4.Mr.M.Venkatesan, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Page Nos.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2375 of 2022 Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us.
5.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as date of surrender and remand in the ground case is 26.09.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 29.10.2022.
6.Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, 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 law arose under 'Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Page Nos.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2375 of 2022 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. 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 Page Nos.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2375 of 2022 reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1159 and a series of other orders in HCP cases.
9.Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
10.Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 29.10.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.37/GOONDA/2022[M1] made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Mohanraj, male, aged 25 years, son of Thiru.Balan 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.) (M.N.K.,J.)
26.04.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
cse
P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Salem.
Page Nos.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2375 of 2022 To
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
3.The District Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
4.The Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode Town Police Station, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2375 of 2022 M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., cse H.C.P.No.2375 of 2022 26.04.2023 Page Nos.8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis