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 and unexplained delay.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the second respondent herein pertaining to the detention order made in S.C.No.23/2022 dated 11.08.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of detenu Musharaf, son of (Late) Amjad, aged about 22 years, now detained in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set the detenu at liberty forthwith.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. This order will now dispose of captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (''HCP'' for the sake of brevity).

2. When the captioned HCP was listed in the Admission Board, this Court vide order dated 03.02.2023 admitted the captioned HCP and issued Rule nisi. A scanned reproduction of the order dated 03.02.2023 is as follows:

3. The aforementioned proceedings made at the time of admission captures the factual matrix in a nut shell and therefore the aforementioned proceedings shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. To be noted the ''detention order dated 11.08.2022 bearing reference S.C.No.23/2022'' made by the detaining authority shall be referred to as ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. Adverting to and elaborating on the point raised at the time of admission (captured in paragraph 5 of the admission proceedings), Mr.M.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for petitioner submitted 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 21.06.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 11.08.2022.

5. 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 of learned State Additional Public Prosecutor is unacceptable.

6. 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 the other facet is ''unexplained delay''. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay.

7. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Bench in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/733 and a series of other HCP matters.

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

9. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 11.08.2022 bearing reference S.C.No.23/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Musharaf, male, aged 22 years, son of (Late) Thiru.Amjad is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.