Ashwini v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Order (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) We have heard Mr.C.Jagan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (criminal Side), learned counsel for the respondents.

¶2The mother of one Moofi @ Stephen @ Vinayagamoorthi (detenu) S/o Kumaran, who was detained as a Drug Offender under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Page2 of 6 Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short 'Act') has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 10.09.2025.

¶3It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 10.08.2025 and he was detained on 10.09.2025. We do not find any satisfactory explanation for the delay in passing the order of detention either in the grounds of detention or in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Hence, we are of the view that the live and proximate link between grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stands snapped.

¶4In Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813), a similar issue arose, and the relevant discussion reads as follows: "21. 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." Page3 of 6

¶5Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others (2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332), had held that when there is an inordinate delay between the date of arrest/date of proposal and the order of detention, the live and proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detention order on this ground.

¶6In yet another case i.e., in Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, ((2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428), this Court had held that the delay of 36 days in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. In the present case, the delay is more than a month and unexplained and for this reason, vitiates the order, rendering it liable to be quashed.

¶7In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is neither a proximate link between the arrest (10.08.2025) and order of detention (10.09.2025), and nor is there any credible material brought on record by the detaining authority to substantiate his subjective satisfaction.

¶8Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.666/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated

10.09.2025 is set aside. Page4 of 6

¶9The detenu, viz., Moofi @ Stephen @ Vinayagamoorthi, S/o.Kumaran, male aged 26 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 02-06-2026 sl Index: Yes/No Speaking order Note to Registry: Issue Today. To

¶1State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009.

¶2The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

¶4The Inspector of Police, G-7, Chetpet Police Station, Chennai.

¶5The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶6The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai -9. Page5 of 6 HCPoNo.o2174oofo2025 DR.ANITAoSUMANTHoJ. AND SUNDERoMOHANoJ. SL HCPoNo.o2174oofo2025 02-06-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Ashwini W/o.Vinayagamoorthi, No.42, Palaniandavar Kovil Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 4. The Inspector of Police, G-7, Chetpet Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Page1 of 6 Prayer: Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ of direction calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.666/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 10.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's Husband MOOFI @ STEPHEN @ VINAYAGAMOORTHI S/O.KUMARAN aged about 26 years the detenue, as Drug Offender now he is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty and pass such further or appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case and Thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Jagan For Respondent(s): Mr. C.R. Malarvannan Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (criminal Side)