HCP/2741/2025 of I.ASINA Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

HCP No. 2741 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. 2741 of 2025 I.Asina W/o.Suresh @ Jalal, No.97, Neruppumedu, Saidapet, Chennai – 15. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and excise (Home), Fort St George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, J-1 Saidapet, Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a WRIT or order or orders or direction particula rly in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records in __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2741 of 2025 No.423/BCDFGISSSV/2025 DATED 30.06.2025 on the file of second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the det enue Sundarrajan, Son of Murugadoss, aged about 22 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Honourable Court and SET HIM AT LIBERTY. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muniapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted By Mr.M.Sylvester John ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The friend of the detenu - Sundarrajan, who has been branded as Drug Offender under Section 2(e) passed under the provision of Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982, has challenged his detention order dated 30.06.2025. 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 25.05.2025 and he was detained on 30.06.2025. 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 __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2741 of 2025 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 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 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 them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detenti on order on this ground. __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2741 of 2025 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. Further, the detention order in respect of another detenu, who is the co-accused in the ground case was quashed. 6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition i s allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.423/BCDFGISSSV/2025, dated 30.06.2025 is hereby set aside. 7. The detenu, viz., Sundarrajan, S/o. Murugadoss, male, aged 22 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is hereby direc ted to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in conne ction with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 09-04-2026 sl Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note to Registry: Issue Today. __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2741 of 2025 To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and excise (Home), Fort St George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, J-1 Saidapet, 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. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2741 of 2025 DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. sl HCP No. 2741 of 2025 09-04-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis