HCP No.2085 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No.2085 of 2025 Syed Rabiya W/o.Mohammed Ibrahim, No.20/43, Fourth Floor, Lal Mohammed Cross Street, Triplicane, Chennai - 600 005. ...Petitioner/Wife of the Detenue Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai - 600 007. 3. The Inspector of Police, D-3, Ice House Police Station, Chennai. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai - 600066. ...Respondents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.2085 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order passed in Memo.No.737/BBCDEFGISSSV/2023 dated 25.09.2025 by the 2nd Respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner’s husband Thiru Mohammed Ibrahim S/o.Rasoolkhan, aged about 33 years, the detenue, now confined in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner’s husband Thiru Mohammed Ibrahim S/o.Rasoolkhan, aged about 33 years the detenue herein at liberty. For Petitioner: M/S.T.K.S.Bharathy Shri For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) The wife of detenu - Mohammed Ibrahim S/o.Rasoolkhan, aged 33 years, has filed this petition challenging the detention order dated 25.09.2025, branding him as ‘Drug Offender’ under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Act 14/1982). https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.2085 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 6 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. It is seen from the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested on 19.08.2025 and he was detained on 25.09.2025. 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.2085 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 6 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 Detention Order No.737/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, dated 25.09.2025 is set aside. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.2085 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 6 7.The detenu, viz., Mohammed Ibrahim S/o.Rasoolkhan, aged 33 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.) 29-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note: Issue order today dk To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai - 600 007. 3. The Inspector of Police, D-3, Ice House Police Station, Chennai. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai – 600066. 5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Secretariat, Fort.St. George, Chennai – 9. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No.2085 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk HCP No. 2085 of 2025 29-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis