HCP/1899/2025 of Annal Vs Union of India

2026:MHC:1499 HCP No. 1899 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 1899 of 2025 Annal W/o. Sivasankar @ Sankar, No.26, Gengai Street, Vasanth Nagar, Muthialpet, Puducherry. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Union of India Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Secretary to Govt. Of Puducherry Union of Puducherry Chief Secretariat, Puducherry. 3. The District Magistrate Cum Authorized officer, Puducherry. 4. The Chief Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry. 5. The Superintendent of Police (East) Puducherry. Crime No. 55/2025 ..Respondent(s) __________ Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1899 of 2025 Prayer: Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ, or order, or direction, in the nature of the writ calling for the records of the detention order dated 13.08.2025 in detention order No.04/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2025, on the file of the third Respondent herein, and quash the same and direct the Respondents herein to produce the dete nue Sivasankar @ Sankar S/o.Saravanan, Hindu aged about 32 years who is now confined in Central Prison Kalapet, Puducherry before the Honourable Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Ms.N.Gayathri for Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan For Respondent(s): Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy Public Prosecutor Puducherry ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) We have heard Ms.N.Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy, learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The wife of one Sivasankar @ Sankar (detenu) S/o Saravanan, who was detained as a dangerous person under Section 3(2) of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2008 (in short ‘Act’) ha s approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 12.08.2025. __________ Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1899 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of detent ion on various grounds. 4. There is some history to the matter, as the detenu is state d to be involved in a slew of cases, of which some have been cited in the or der of detention and in the counter filed by the respondents. In respect of Crime No.13 of 2015, a non-bailable warrant had been issued as against the detenu on 18.06.2024 and he had ultimately surrendered to the authorities on 04.04.2025 and had been lodged in Central Prison, Puducherry. 5. While so, there appears to have been an incident that had taken place on 14.02.2025 and the authorities, suspecting the involvement of the detenu in the said incident, arrested the detenu formally on 10.04.2025. However, t he order of detention in connection with the said incident that took place on 14.02.2025, has been passed only on 12.08.2025. 6. In such circumstances, the question that would arise for our determination is as to whether the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority to make arrest on 10.04.2025 and pass an order of detention on 12.08.2025 reveals application of mind and whether there is any justifiabl e link between the incident, arrest and the detention. 7. In Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813), a similar issue arose, and the relevant discussion reads as follows: __________ Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1899 of 2025 “21. 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.” 8. 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 (2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332), had held that when there is an inordinate delay between the date of arre st/date of proposal and the order of detention, the live and proximate link betwee n them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detention order on thi s ground. 9. In yet another case i.e., in Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , ((2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428), this Court had held that the delay of 36 days in pa ssing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu would snap the live a nd proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. In the present case, t he __________ Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1899 of 2025 delay is far longer, just two days shy of 6 months. The delay is inor dinate and unexplained and for this reason, vitiates the order, rendering it li able to be quashed. 10. That apart, the detenu has moved a bail application in Cr.M.P.No.1332 of 2025 which has, admittedly, been dismissed. There is no other bail petition that has been moved by the detenu and in fact, there is not even an averment to that effect in the grounds of detention. The de taining authority refers to intelligence collected by the police authorit ies on 02.08.2025 and 07.08.2025 from informants, to the effect that the detenu is hatching a plan while in prison to extort money from business people through his associate s who are outside. This is one of the grounds on the basis of which he ar rives at the subjective satisfaction for the impugned order of detention to be passed. 11. On a perusal of the order of detention, we do not find any credible material on the basis of which the subjective satisfaction has bee n formed, aside from general references to the information allegedly received from the informants. 12. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is neither a proximate link between the incident (14.02.2025, 10.04.2025) and order of detention dated (12.08.2025), and nor is there any credible material brought on record by the detaining authority to substantiate his subjective satisfaction. __________ Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1899 of 2025 13. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detenti on Order passed by the third respondent in No.04/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2025 dated 12.08.2025 is set aside. 14. The detenu, viz., Sivasankar @ Sankar, S/o.Saravanan, male aged 32 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry, is di rected to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 09-04-2026 sl Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes To 1. Union of India Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Secretary to Govt. Of Puducherry Union of Puducherry Chief Secretariat, Puducherry. 3. The District Magistrate Cum Authorized officer, Puducherry. __________ Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1899 of 2025 4. The Chief Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry. 5. The Superintendent of Police (East) Puducherry. 6. The Public Prosecutor (Puducherry), High Court of Madras. 7. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai -9. __________ Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 1899 of 2025 DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. sl HCP No. 1899 of 2025 09-04-2026 __________ Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis