The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, with a focus on unreasonable or unexplained delay.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner''s friend detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 30.07.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings BCDFGISSV No.223/2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said Petitioners friend namely Jamaludeen son of Mohamed Meeran aged 46 years before this Court and set the petitioner''s friend at liberty from detention now petitioner''s friend detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.)

M. SUNDAR, J.,

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and brevity] has been filed by the friend of the detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 30.07.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV.No.223/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience]. To be noted, the third respondent is the sponsoring authority and the second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by the second respondent.

2. Impugned detention order has been made 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 No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There is four adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which is the substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.102 of 2022 on the file of G-7 Chetpet Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.C.C.Chellappan, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John learned counsel for respondents are before us.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ''live and proximate link'' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as date of remand in the ground case is 08.06.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 30.07.2022.

6. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time was consumed for the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation is unacceptable.

7. We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik''s case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. To be noted, Banik case law arose under ''Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988'' [hereinafter ''PIT NDPS Act'' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, wherein after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the ''live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping'' point should be examined on a case to case basis. Hon''ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is ''unreasonable delay'' and other facet is ''unexplained delay''. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay.

8. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogativ