HCP/614/2026 of Pushpa Vs State Rep.by, The Secretary to Government,

HCP No. 614 of 2026 __________ Page 1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 614 of 2026 Pushpa ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State rep. By: The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Salem District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem. 5. The Inspector of Police, Deevattipatti Police Station, Salem. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India pr aying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in CMP.No.10/GOONDA/C2/2025 dated 29.07.2025 on the file of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem District, the Second respondent herein https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 614 of 2026 __________ Page 2 of 6 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Nareshkumar S/o. Raja, aged about 32 years, now confined at Central Pr ison, Salem, before this Hon’ble Court and set him at Liberty. For Petitioner(s): Ms.S.Sengkodi For Respondent(s): Mr. R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assisted By Mr. M.Sylvester John ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The mother of detenu - Nareshkumar, S/o.Raja, aged 32 years, has fil ed this petition challenging the detention order dated 29.07.2025, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additi onal Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 24.05.2025 and he was detained on 29.07.2025. Neither in the grounds of detention nor in the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent, any satisfactory explanation has been given for the delay in passing the order of detention. We are of the view that in view of the delay, the live and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 614 of 2026 __________ Page 3 of 6 proximate link between grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, stood snapped. In this regard, we may rely upon the judgment of the H on’ble Supreme Court in 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura' , reported in '2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333' and the relevant paragraph reads as follows: “21. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decision s of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is unr easonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest o f 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.” 4. 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 proxi mate link between the grounds and purpose of detention would stand snapped. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 614 of 2026 __________ Page 4 of 6 5. 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 vi ew 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. 6.In light of the above discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Detention O rder C.M.P.No.10/GOONDA/C2/2025, dated 29.07.2025 is set aside. 7.The detenu, viz., Nareshkumar, S/o.Raja, aged 32 years, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty f orthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 28-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note: Issue order today TSG https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 614 of 2026 __________ Page 5 of 6 To 1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Salem District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem. 5. The Inspector of Police, Deevattipatti Police Station, Salem. 6. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. 7. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort.St. George, Chennai – 9. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 614 of 2026 __________ Page 6 of 6 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG HCP No. 614 of 2026 28-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis