IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.07.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1071 of 2024 J.Manimegalai .. Petitioner/

Wife of the detenue Versus

1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Behind: Amman Kalyana Mandapam, Athimarathottam, Sirupooluvaampatty, Tiruppur City, Pin - 641 603.

3. The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur City, South (Crime) Police Station, Tiruppur City.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore. .. Respondents Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, made in his proceedings C.No.21/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2024 dated 03.04.2024 in detaining the detenue under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, as a "Goonda" and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue, Jayachandran alias Jai alias Vijaikarthik, son of Varadarajan, who is detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

M .S.RAMESH, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenue viz., Jayachandran alias Jai alias Vijaikarthik, S/o.Varatharajan, aged about 37 years, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 03.04.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" 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].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.

4. In the instant case, the detenue was arrested on 05.02.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 03.04.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura'

reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the detenue. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:-

“20. 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.”

6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case o