2026:MHC:2949 HCP No. 91 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 91 of 2026 K.Kannan S/o.Krishnan, 152, Bhagwat Singh Road, Lawspettai, Laspet, Puducherry - 605 008. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State Rep. By The Special Secretary to Govt., (Home), Govt. of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 001. 2. The District Collector Cum Authorized Officer, Puducherry District, Puducherry. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police (L and O), Puducherry. 4. The Chief Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry. 5. The Inspector of Police, Lawspet Police Station, Puducherry. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of order or direction particularly in the nature of HABEAS __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2949 HCP No. 91 of 2026 CORPUS to call for the records No.03/DM/RO/D2/PITNDPS/2025 dated 20.11.2025 and served on 24/11/2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and QUASH the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the Petitioner’s son Thiru.SEGAR S/o.Kannan who is now detained in Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry before this Hon’ble Court and set him at Liberty and pass such other or orders as this Hon’ble Court. For Petitioner(s): Ms.A.Nethra For Respondent(s): Mr.Thamizhmani Advocate Puducherry Order (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) We have heard Ms.A.Nethra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Thamizhmani, learned Advocate Puducherry, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The father of one Segar (detenu) S/o Kannan, who was detained as a illegal drug trafficker under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Act No.46 of 1988) has approached this Court challenging the order of detention dated 20.11.2025. 3. It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 25.08.2025 and he was detained on 20.11.2025. We do not find any satisfactory explanation for the delay in passing the order of __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2949 HCP No. 91 of 2026 detention. Hence, we are of the view that the live and proximate link between grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stands snapped. 4. In 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.” 5. 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 (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. __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2949 HCP No. 91 of 2026 6. In 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 two months, 88 days to be exact, and unexplained and for this reason, vitiates the order, rendering it liable to be quashed. 7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is neither a proximate link between the arrest (25.08.2025) and order of detention (20.11.2025), and nor is there any credible material brought on record by the detaining authority to substantiate his subjective satisfaction. 8. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.03/DM/RO/D2/PITNDPS/2025 dated 20.11.2025 is set aside. 9. The detenu, viz., Segar, S/o.Kannan, male aged 31 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry, 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.) 21-07-2026 sl Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes Note to Registry: Issue Today. __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2949 HCP No. 91 of 2026 To 1. The Special Secretary to Govt., (Home), Govt. of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 001. 2. The District Collector Cum Authorized Officer, Puducherry District, Puducherry. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police (L and O), Puducherry. 4. The Chief Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry. 5. The Inspector of Police, Lawspet Police Station, Puducherry. 6. The Public Prosecutor (Puducherry), High Court, Madras. 7. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2949 HCP No. 91 of 2026 DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. SL HCP No. 91 of 2026 21-07-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis