ORDER :

M. Sundar, J.

Captioned 'habeas corpus petition' (‘HCP’ for the sake of convenience and clarity) has been filed in this Court on 16.06.2022 by the detenu himself assailing a detention order dated 08.06.2022 bearing D.O.No.63/2022-C2 made by the second respondent (jurisdictional District Collector). The ‘detention order’ shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘impugned D.O.’ and the 'second respondent/ detaining authority’ shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘D.A.’ for the sake of convenience and clarity. To be noted, the fifth respondent, who is the jurisdictional Inspector of Police, is the sponsoring authority.

2. Mr. M. Mohamed Saifulla, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for all the five respondents are before us.

3. Owing to nature of the grounds on which the impugned D.O. has been assailed and also the legal perimeter of a HCP qua a detention order 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 14 of 1982)' [hereinafter ‘Act 14 of 1982’ for the sake of convenience and clarity], we deem it appropriate to give only a thumb nail sketch of facts. It will suffice to say that there is one adverse case and a ground case. The ground case is Crime No.100 of 2022 for alleged offences qua Sections 294(b), 341, 324, 307 IPC r/w Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. This is captured in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows :

‘3(d). Later the Inspector of Police, Vandavasi Circle took up the case for investigation, in ground case in Vandavasi South Police Station Cr.No.100/2022 u/s.294(b), 341, 324, 307 IPC r/w Sec 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and the case property 1)some broken pieces of lorry side glass bearing registration number TN-12-AM-1113 was seized under a cover of mahazar at near speed breaker at near Government School, Ammaiyampattu Village, Vandavasi to Arni Road in the presence of two independent witnesses: (1) Thiru. Kanniyappan (Age 59) S/o. Singaram, No.50, Selvavinayagar Kovil Street, Ammaiyampattu Village, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District and (2) Thiru. Vijay (Age 32) S/o. Sakthi, 2nd Cross Street, Mummuni Colony, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District on 15.04.2022 at 06.30 hours. Later the Inspector of Police enquired and recorded their statements of the above two independent witnesses on 15.04.2022. The above case property was handed over to the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi under form 91 numbered as C.P.No.42/2022, Item II, dated: 26.04.2022.'

4. Suffice to say that the aforementioned extract from the grounds of detention is tell-tale qua facts in captioned HCP. We do not propose to be detained by facts or in other words we do not propose to dilate further on facts for the reasons already alluded to supra.

5. Notwithstanding very many averments made in the affidavit filed in support of captioned HCP, learned counsel for petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned D.O. on three points. These three points viewed in the light of the case file and the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor find favour with us. The three points, discussion on the same and dispositive reasoning are as follows:

5.1 The first point is delay in making the D.O. Though it is projected as 'delay in making the D.O.', in legal parlance, it is ‘live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention having snapped’. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the detenu was remanded to judicial custody in the ground case on 19.04.2022 and the impugned D.O. was made on 08.06.2022, 50 days later and therefore the live and proximity link between the g