Santhosh v. The State of Tamilnadu

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the detenu viz., Santhosh, son of Ramachandran, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.18/2026 dated 17-02-2026, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶2We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. Page No.2 of 7

¶3Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that there is an inordinate delay between the arrest of the detenu and passing the impugned detention order. In this case, the detenu was arrested on 14.01.2026, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 17.02.2026, i.e., after a lapse of one month. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the same. He further submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.

¶4Learned counsel for the State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though there was a delay in passing the impugned detention order, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned counsel for the State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side), no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore, prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. Page No.3 of 7

¶5The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on

14.01.2026 and the detention order was passed on 17.02.2026. This shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which is also unexplained. The live and proximate link between the arrest of the detenu and the need for passing the order of detention has snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

¶6In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333, when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order unless such delay is satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The relevant portion 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 Page No.4 of 7 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."

¶7In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order.

¶8In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.18/2026 dated 17-02-2026, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu namely, Page No.5 of 7 Santhosh, son of Ramachandran, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]

29.07.2026

Index : Yes / No : Yes / No rm To:

¶1The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶2The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.

¶4The Counsel for State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page No.6 of 7

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND

R.POORNIMA, J. rm DATED : 29.07.2026 Page No.7 of 7

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.436 of 2026 Santhosh ... Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the 2nd respondent passed in Detention Order No.18/2026 dated 17-02-2026 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Page No.1 of 7 Santhosh, son of Ramachandran, aged about 24 years, now detained as 'Goonda' at Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan Counsel for State of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side)