The flawed exercise of comparing a default bail order with the ground case and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying forissuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.C.No.04/G/IS/2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner''s son namely Murugesan, son of Mariyappan, aged about 31 years, who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore as Goonda before this Court and set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. When the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] came up for admission on 13.04.2023, this Bench made the following order:

Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 06.04.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 11.01.2023 bearing reference C.No.04/G/IS/2023 made by ''second respondent'' [hereinafter ''Detaining Authority'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.

2. Mother of the detenu is the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 392 read with 397 of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] in Crime No.585 of 2022 on the file of C-1 Kattoor Police Station.

4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' under Section 2(f) of ''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].

5. The detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as there is delay of 30 days in passing the impugned detention order.

6. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks.

7. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.''

2. The aforementioned Admission Board order captures essentials that are imperative for appreciating this order and therefore, we are not setting out the same again. However, short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the Admission Board order will continue to be used in the instant order also for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

3. Mr.M.Vinoth, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

4. To be noted, ''order dated 11.01.2023 bearing reference C.No.04/G/IS/2023'' made by second respondent / Detaining Authority shall in this order be referred to as ''impugned preventive detention order'' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

5. As would be evident from paragraph 5 of the Admission Board order, at the time of admission learned counsel for petitioner predicated his challenge to the impugned preventive detention order on the point that live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as there is delay of 30 days in passing the impugned detention order, however in the final hearing board today learned counsel submitted thatsubjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as regards imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is impaired. Elaborating on this submission, learned counsel drew our attention to a portion of paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention and the