Jambukarasi v. The State Rep by

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) We have heard Mr.T.I.Ramanathan, 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 Vijayarangan (detenu) S/o Kaviraj, who was detained as a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (in short 'Act') has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated

18.09.2025.

¶3It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 16.08.2025 and he was detained on 18.09.2025. 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 Page3 of 6 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."

¶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. Page4 of 6

¶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 (16.08.2025) and order of detention (18.09.2025), 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.713/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated

18.09.2025 is set aside.

¶9The detenu, viz., Vijayarangan, S/o.Kaviraj, male aged 27 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.) sl 08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order Note: Issue today. Page5 of 6 To

¶1The State Rep By The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and excise Department Fort ST.George Chennai - 600009

¶2The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai - 600066.

¶4The Inspector of Police G-2 Periamet Police Station, Chennai.

¶5The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

¶6The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Secretariat Fort ST.George Chennai – 600009. HCPoNo.o6oofo2026 DR.ANITAoSUMANTHoJ. AND SUNDERoMOHANoJ. SL HCPoNo.o6oofo2026 08-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Jambukarasi W/o.Dinakaran, No.08/09, 3rd Street, N.H.Road, Periamet, Chennai - 600003 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The 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 Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai - 600066. 4. The Inspector of Police G-2 Periamet Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) PETITION filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or direction calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.713/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 dated 18/09/2025 against the petitioners SON VIJAYARANGAN S/O KAVIRAJ Male aged 27 years the detenue herein now confined in central prison puzhal Chennai and to set aside Page2 of 6 the detention order and direct the respondent to produce the petitioners son before this Honble Court and set him at liberty and pass such further or appropriate orders which may deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): M/s.T.I.Ramanathan For Respondent(s): Mr. C.R. Malarvannan. Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (criminal Side)