HCP/2089/2025 of Manjula Devi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

2026:MHC:1644 HCP No. 2089 of 2025 __________ Page 1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 2089 of 2025 Manjula Devi W/o.Amulkumar Yadav, No. 25, Feroz Sabhib Street, Royapettah, Chennai 600 122. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai 600 007. 3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police D4 Zam Bazaar Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2089 of 2025 __________ Page 2 of 6 the nature of the writ, to call for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No. 711/BCDFGISSSV/2025 Dt. 18.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14/1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner’s husband Amulkumar Yadav S/o.Rajkishore Yadav, aged about 52 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Honble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Vinoth Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted By Mr. M. Sylvester John ORDER (Made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) Amulkumar Yadav, S/o. Rajkishore Yadav, has been branded as ‘Drug Offender’ under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982) and kept in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai under order dated 18.09.2025. His wife has filed this petition seeking a quash of the aforesaid order. 2. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 16.08.2025 and he was detained on 18.09.2025. Neither in the grounds of detention nor in the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2089 of 2025 __________ Page 3 of 6 respondent, has any satisfactory explanation 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 proximate link between grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, stood snapped. In this regard, we may rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura , [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813] and the relevant paragraph reads as follows: “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.” 4. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in 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 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. 5. 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 passing the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2089 of 2025 __________ Page 4 of 6 detention order after the arrest of the detenu would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. In the present case as well, the delay, of a period of 32 days, is inordinate and unexplained and for this reason, vitiates the order, rendering it liable to be quashed. 6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.711/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 18.09.2025 is set aside. 7. The detenu, viz., Amulkumar Yadav, S/o.Rajkishore Yadav , aged 52 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 29-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes ssm Note to Registry: Issue today. To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai 600 007. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2089 of 2025 __________ Page 5 of 6 3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police D4 Zam Bazaar Police Station, Chennai. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai -9. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2089 of 2025 __________ Page 6 of 6 DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. ssm HCP No. 2089 of 2025 29-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis