HCP No. 2016 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 2016 of 2025 Garapati Vijayalakshmi ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Police, No.132, EVK Sampath Road, Periamet, Vepery, Park Town, Chennai – 600 007. 3. The Inspector of Police (Crime) D-1, Triplicane Police Station, Greater Chennai Police, 4. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal - II, Chennai - 600 066. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2016 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 7 relating to the Impugned order of Detention dated 10.09.2025 in vide Memo No.663/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, passed by the 2nd Respondent herein and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to set forth the detenue Mukesh Saikumar, S/o. Vinothkumar, aged 25 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai before this Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Thirugnanam for Mr.N.Senthil Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr. R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assisted By Mr. M.Sylvester John ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The mother of detenu - Mukesh Saikumar, S/o.Vinothkumar, aged 25 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 10.09.2025, branding him as ‘Drug Offender’ under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2016 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 7 3. It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 08.08.2025 and he was detained on 10.09.2025. Neither in the grounds of detention nor in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, any satisfactory explanation has been given for the delay in passing the order of detention. We are of the view that in view of the delay, the live and proximate link between grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, stood snapped. In this regard, we may rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura', reported in '2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333' and the relevant paragraph 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.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2016 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 7 4. Drawing 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', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332', had held that when there is an inordinate delay from the date of arrest/date of proposal till the order of detention, the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention would stand snapped. 5. In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', reported in '(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. Hence, in view of the unexplained and inordinate delay in passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenu, the detention order in the present case, is liable to be quashed. 6.In light of the above discussion, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2016 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 7 Detention Order No.663/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 10.09.2025 is set aside. 7.The detenu, viz., Mukesh Saikumar, S/o.Vinothkumar, aged 25 years, 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.) 27-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note: Issue Order Today. Tsg To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Police, No.132, EVK Sampath Road, Periamet, Vepery, Park Town, Chennai – 600 007. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2016 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 7 3. The Inspector of Police (Crime) D-1, Triplicane Police Station, Greater Chennai Police, 4. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal - II, Chennai - 600 066. 5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 2016 of 2025 __________ Page7 of 7 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. Tsg HCP No. 2016 of 2025 27-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis