{ "metadata": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioner contended that the nearly two-month gap between the detenu\u2019s arrest and the issuance of the detention order was neither justified nor properly explained, rendering the detention stale and unsustainable. The State maintained that no specific time limit exists for passing such preventive orders and insisted the order remained justified, with both parties focusing on whether any delay was explained and how it affected the propriety of the detention.", "bench": [ "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice M. Sundar", "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar" ], "case_number": [ "HCP No. 1381 of 2022" ], "cases_referred": [ "Sushanta Kumar Banik vs State of Tripura \u0026 Others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333" ], "chunkwise_data": { "chunk_1": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioner contends that the nearly two-month gap between the detenu\u2019s arrest and the issuance of the detention order renders the basis for detention stale and unsustainable. The State, however, maintains that the order was passed in a timely manner and remains justified. Both sides concentrate on whether the delay is explained and whether it affects the propriety of the detention.", "cases_referred": [ "Sushanta Kumar Banik vs State of Tripura \u0026 Others 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333" ], "facts": "The petitioner is the spouse of the detenu, who was arrested on 19.04.2022 in connection with Crime No.167 of 2022 for alleged offences under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959. The District Collector issued a detention order on 11.06.2022, branding the detenu as a \u0027Goonda\u0027 under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 13.07.2022, challenging the detention primarily due to the alleged delay between the arrest and the issuance of the detention order. The matter is now before the High Court of Madras for consideration.", "final_status": "No final status is indicated in the provided excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "This section concerns a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The petitioner, the detenu\u2019s spouse, contends there was an unjustified two-month gap between the detenu\u2019s arrest and the detention order, potentially breaking the link between grounds for and purpose of detention. The State responds that the order was passed within an acceptable timeframe. Reference is made to the Banik decision, which discusses unexplained and unreasonable delay in preventive detention matters. No final ruling is provided in the text.", "held": "No final holding or operative portion is provided in the excerpt.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the alleged delay in passing the detention order invalidates the detention and whether such delay severs the link between the grounds of detention and its purpose.", "statutes": { "Arms Act, 1959": "The Ground case is Crime No.167 of 2022 for alleged offences under Section 399 of \u0027The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027IPC\u0027 for the sake of convenience and clarity] and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. To be noted, ground case is on the file of the fifth respondent who is the Sponsoring Authority. It may not be necessary to be detained further by facts as the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is delay in making the impugned detention order and in this regard learned counsel draws our attention to Ground (IV) of the support affidavit which reads as follows: \u0027IV. It is submitted that the detenu was arrested on 19.04.2022 and the detention order has been passed almost after the lapse of two months on 11.06.2022.\u0027", "Constitution of India (Article 226)": "Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in C.O.C.No.342022 dated 11.06.2022 and set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent to produce the detenu Vandu @ Dahnaraj, Son of Dhanushkodi aged about 21 years, now confined in Central Prison, Trichy before this Hon\u0027ble Court and set him at liberty.", "Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988": "To be noted, Banik case law arose under \u0027Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027PIT NDPS Act\u0027 for the sake of brevity] in Tripura, after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court held that the \u0027live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping\u0027 point should be examined on a case to case basis.", "The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)": "The Ground case is Crime No.167 of 2022 for alleged offences under Section 399 of \u0027The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027IPC\u0027 for the sake of convenience and clarity] and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. To be noted, ground case is on the file of the fifth respondent who is the Sponsoring Authority. It may not be necessary to be detained further by facts as the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is delay in making the impugned detention order and in this regard learned counsel draws our attention to Ground (IV) of the support affidavit which reads as follows: \u0027IV. It is submitted that the detenu was arrested on 19.04.2022 and the detention order has been passed almost after the lapse of two months on 11.06.2022. Therefore, the apprehension of the respondent is baseless and the impugned detention order is liable to be set-aside.\u0027", "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": "Suffice to say that the impugned detention order has been made by the Detaining Authority on the premise that the detenu is a \u0027Goonda\u0027 within the meaning of Section 2(f) of \u0027The 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)\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027Act 14 of 1982\u0027 for the sake of convenience and clarity]." } }, "chunk_2": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioner contended that the significant gap between the detenu\u2019s remand and the issuance of the detention order was neither justified nor properly explained, invalidating the detention. The respondents maintained that no specific time limit exists for passing such an order, asserting that the detention was lawful despite the lapse.", "cases_referred": [ "Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura \u0026 others (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333)" ], "facts": "The detenu was placed under preventive detention for alleged offences under Section 399 IPC and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959. The detention order was issued 53 days after the detenu\u2019s remand, prompting a challenge by way of this Habeas Corpus Petition. The petition focused on the delay in issuing the order and whether it severed the necessary link between the grounds and purpose of detention. The matter reached the High Court, which reviewed the timeline, considered the factual setting, and examined the unexplained delay before rendering a decision.", "final_status": "allowed", "formatted_summary": "A detention order was issued against the detenu for alleged offences involving Section 399 IPC and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959. The key issue was whether the unexplained delay of 53 days in passing this order severed the link between the reasons for detention and its objective. Relying on precedent, the Court found that such delay was both unexplained and unreasonable. Concluding that the detention lacked a live and proximate connection to its rationale, the Court set aside the order and directed the detenu\u2019s release.", "held": "The Court held that the prolonged and unexplained delay in issuing the detention order dissolved the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and its purpose. Consequently, the detention was deemed invalid and set aside. The detenu was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other matter, underscoring that preventive detention should not be punitive.", "latin_principles": { "ergo": "Paragraph 8: \u0027Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed...\u0027", "supra": "Paragraph 5: \u0027...extracted and reproduced elsewhere supra in this order...\u0027" }, "legal_issues": "Whether the delay in passing the detention order constituted unexplained and unreasonable delay, thereby snapping the requisite connection between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention.", "statutes": { "Arms Act, 1959": "In the case on hand, there are two adverse cases, one ground case and that ground case is for alleged offences under Section 399 IPC and 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. The Detaining Authority passed the impugned order 53 days after remand in the ground case. The Court observed that there is no prescribed time limit for making the detention order but found that unexplained delay can sever the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and its purpose. Ultimately, the Court held that the delay in this instance had snapped the link.", "Indian Penal Code, 1860": "In the case on hand, there are two adverse cases, one ground case, and that ground case is for alleged offences under Section 399 IPC, indicating a plan or preparation to commit dacoity. This was one basis for invoking preventive detention. The Detaining Authority passed the order 53 days after the detainee was remanded. The Court found that the delayed issuance of the order constituted unexplained delay, severing the required connection between the grounds and purpose of detention, ultimately leading to the order being set aside.", "Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988": "Banik case law arose under \u0027Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027PIT NDPS Act\u0027 for brevity] in Tripura, after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, the Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court held that the \u0027live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping\u0027 point should be examined on a case to case basis. The Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court has also held that the issue has two facets, namely, \u0027unreasonable delay\u0027 and \u0027unexplained delay.\u0027 This principle was applied while determining whether delay rendered the detention order invalid." } } }, "counsels": [ "Mr.S.Vellidoss, representing Mr.Veerapillai Ramesh (for Petitioner)", "Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor (for Respondents)" ], "delivered_date": "06.02.2023", "facts": "On 19.04.2022, the detenu was arrested in connection with Crime No.167 of 2022 for alleged offences under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959. The District Collector issued a detention order on 11.06.2022, branding the detenu as a \u0027Goonda\u0027 under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, 53 days after the detenu\u2019s remand. The petitioner, the detenu\u2019s spouse, filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 13.07.2022, challenging the detention on the ground of undue delay between arrest and issuance of the order. The High Court reviewed whether this delay severed the link between the grounds of detention and its purpose, examining the timeline and factual setting before arriving at its decision.", "final_status": "allowed", "first_party": [ "1. D.Mala W/o.Dhanushkodi" ], "grouped_statutes": { "Arms Act, 1959": [ "The Ground case is Crime No.167 of 2022 for alleged offences under Section 399 of \u0027The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027IPC\u0027 for the sake of convenience and clarity] and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. To be noted, ground case is on the file of the fifth respondent who is the Sponsoring Authority. It may not be necessary to be detained further by facts as the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is delay in making the impugned detention order and in this regard learned counsel draws our attention to Ground (IV) of the support affidavit which reads as follows: \u0027IV. It is submitted that the detenu was arrested on 19.04.2022 and the detention order has been passed almost after the lapse of two months on 11.06.2022.\u0027", "In the case on hand, there are two adverse cases, one ground case and that ground case is for alleged offences under Section 399 IPC and 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. The Detaining Authority passed the impugned order 53 days after remand in the ground case. The Court observed that there is no prescribed time limit for making the detention order but found that unexplained delay can sever the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and its purpose. Ultimately, the Court held that the delay in this instance had snapped the link." ], "Constitution of India (Article 226)": [ "Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in C.O.C.No.342022 dated 11.06.2022 and set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent to produce the detenu Vandu @ Dahnaraj, Son of Dhanushkodi aged about 21 years, now confined in Central Prison, Trichy before this Hon\u0027ble Court and set him at liberty." ], "Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988": [ "To be noted, Banik case law arose under \u0027Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027PIT NDPS Act\u0027 for the sake of brevity] in Tripura, after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court held that the \u0027live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping\u0027 point should be examined on a case to case basis.", "Banik case law arose under \u0027Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027PIT NDPS Act\u0027 for brevity] in Tripura, after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, the Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court held that the \u0027live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping\u0027 point should be examined on a case to case basis. The Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court has also held that the issue has two facets, namely, \u0027unreasonable delay\u0027 and \u0027unexplained delay.\u0027 This principle was applied while determining whether delay rendered the detention order invalid." ], "The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)": [ "The Ground case is Crime No.167 of 2022 for alleged offences under Section 399 of \u0027The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027IPC\u0027 for the sake of convenience and clarity] and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. To be noted, ground case is on the file of the fifth respondent who is the Sponsoring Authority. It may not be necessary to be detained further by facts as the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is delay in making the impugned detention order and in this regard learned counsel draws our attention to Ground (IV) of the support affidavit which reads as follows: \u0027IV. It is submitted that the detenu was arrested on 19.04.2022 and the detention order has been passed almost after the lapse of two months on 11.06.2022. Therefore, the apprehension of the respondent is baseless and the impugned detention order is liable to be set-aside.\u0027", "In the case on hand, there are two adverse cases, one ground case, and that ground case is for alleged offences under Section 399 IPC, indicating a plan or preparation to commit dacoity. This was one basis for invoking preventive detention. The Detaining Authority passed the order 53 days after the detainee was remanded. The Court found that the delayed issuance of the order constituted unexplained delay, severing the required connection between the grounds and purpose of detention, ultimately leading to the order being set aside." ], "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": [ "Suffice to say that the impugned detention order has been made by the Detaining Authority on the premise that the detenu is a \u0027Goonda\u0027 within the meaning of Section 2(f) of \u0027The 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)\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027Act 14 of 1982\u0027 for the sake of convenience and clarity]." ] }, "held": "The Court held that the prolonged and unexplained delay dissolved the live and proximate link between the grounds for detention and its purpose. Consequently, the detention was deemed invalid and set aside. The detenu was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other matter, emphasizing that preventive detention should not become punitive.", "latin_principles": { "ergo": "Paragraph 8: \u0027Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed...\u0027", "supra": "Paragraph 5: \u0027...extracted and reproduced elsewhere supra in this order...\u0027" }, "legal_issues": [ "Whether the alleged delay in passing the detention order was unexplained and unreasonable", "whether such delay invalidates the detention by severing the link between the grounds of detention and its purpose." ], "location": "Madras", "prayer": "Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in C.O.C.No.342022 dated 11.06.2022 and set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent to produce the detenu Vandu @ Dahnaraj, Son of Dhanushkodi aged about 21 years, now confined in Central Prison, Trichy before this Hon\u0027ble Court and set him at liberty.", "reserved_date": null, "second_party": [ "1. The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department (Home), Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-9", "2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District", "3. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy", "4. The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District", "5. The Inspector of Police, Kilvelur Police Station, Nagapattinam District" ], "statutes": { "Arms Act, 1959": [ "The Ground case is Crime No.167 of 2022 for alleged offences under Section 399 of \u0027The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027IPC\u0027 for the sake of convenience and clarity] and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. To be noted, ground case is on the file of the fifth respondent who is the Sponsoring Authority. It may not be necessary to be detained further by facts as the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is delay in making the impugned detention order and in this regard learned counsel draws our attention to Ground (IV) of the support affidavit which reads as follows: \u0027IV. It is submitted that the detenu was arrested on 19.04.2022 and the detention order has been passed almost after the lapse of two months on 11.06.2022.\u0027", "In the case on hand, there are two adverse cases, one ground case and that ground case is for alleged offences under Section 399 IPC and 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. The Detaining Authority passed the impugned order 53 days after remand in the ground case. The Court observed that there is no prescribed time limit for making the detention order but found that unexplained delay can sever the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and its purpose. Ultimately, the Court held that the delay in this instance had snapped the link." ], "Constitution of India (Article 226)": [ "Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in C.O.C.No.342022 dated 11.06.2022 and set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent to produce the detenu Vandu @ Dahnaraj, Son of Dhanushkodi aged about 21 years, now confined in Central Prison, Trichy before this Hon\u0027ble Court and set him at liberty." ], "Indian Penal Code, 1860": [ "The Ground case is Crime No.167 of 2022 for alleged offences under Section 399 of \u0027The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027IPC\u0027 for the sake of convenience and clarity] and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. To be noted, ground case is on the file of the fifth respondent who is the Sponsoring Authority. It may not be necessary to be detained further by facts as the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is delay in making the impugned detention order and in this regard learned counsel draws our attention to Ground (IV) of the support affidavit which reads as follows: \u0027IV. It is submitted that the detenu was arrested on 19.04.2022 and the detention order has been passed almost after the lapse of two months on 11.06.2022. Therefore, the apprehension of the respondent is baseless and the impugned detention order is liable to be set-aside.\u0027", "In the case on hand, there are two adverse cases, one ground case, and that ground case is for alleged offences under Section 399 IPC, indicating a plan or preparation to commit dacoity. This was one basis for invoking preventive detention. The Detaining Authority passed the order 53 days after the detainee was remanded. The Court found that the delayed issuance of the order constituted unexplained delay, severing the required connection between the grounds and purpose of detention, ultimately leading to the order being set aside." ], "Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988": [ "To be noted, Banik case law arose under \u0027Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027PIT NDPS Act\u0027 for the sake of brevity] in Tripura, after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court held that the \u0027live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping\u0027 point should be examined on a case to case basis.", "Banik case law arose under \u0027Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027PIT NDPS Act\u0027 for brevity] in Tripura, after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, the Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court held that the \u0027live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping\u0027 point should be examined on a case to case basis. The Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court has also held that the issue has two facets, namely, \u0027unreasonable delay\u0027 and \u0027unexplained delay.\u0027 This principle was applied while determining whether delay rendered the detention order invalid." ], "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": [ "Suffice to say that the impugned detention order has been made by the Detaining Authority on the premise that the detenu is a \u0027Goonda\u0027 within the meaning of Section 2(f) of \u0027The 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)\u0027 [hereinafter \u0027Act 14 of 1982\u0027 for the sake of convenience and clarity]." ] }, "statutes_headnotes": { "Arms Act, 1959": "\u2014 Preventive Detention under Section 25(1A) \u2014 Unexplained 53-day delay between arrest and detention order \u2014 Live and proximate link severed \u2014 Detention invalid \u2014 Detenu released.", "Constitution of India (Article 226)": "\u2014 Writ of Habeas Corpus \u2014 Preventive Detention \u2014 Prolonged and unexplained delay in issuing detention order severed the live and proximate link between grounds and purpose \u2014 Preventive detention should not become punitive \u2014 Detention order invalid \u2014 Detenu released.", "Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988": "\u2014 PIT NDPS Act \u2014 Delay in passing preventive detention order \u2014 Unexplained or unreasonable delay severs the \u2018live and proximate link\u2019 \u2014 Preventive detention should not become punitive \u2014 Detention invalid \u2014 Detenu released.", "The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)": "\u2014 Preventive Detention \u2014 Unexplained 53-day gap between remand and detention order \u2014 Proximate link severed \u2014 Detention set aside.", "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": "\u2014 Preventive Detention \u2014 Detenu branded as \u2018Goonda\u2019 under Section 2(f) \u2014 Two-month unexplained delay severed live and proximate link \u2014 Preventive detention should not become punitive \u2014 Detention order set aside \u2014 Detenu released." } }, "summary": { "formatted_summary": "A habeas corpus petition was filed challenging the preventive detention of the detenu, who was arrested for alleged offences under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner asserted that the significant delay between arrest and the detention order severed the connection between the grounds and purpose of detention. The State maintained that no fixed timeline governs such orders and defended the detention as justified. Referring to precedent, the Court concluded that unexplained and unreasonable delay in issuing a preventive detention order can invalidate it. The Court declared the order void and directed the detenu\u2019s release." } }