Senthurvelan @ Susimaran vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by i
- Court
- Madras High Court
HCP(MD) No. 766 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.GUNASEKARAN
HCP(MD) No. 766 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010749992026}
Senthurvelan @ Susimaran
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District
Magistrate,
Madurai District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to call for the entire records connected with the
detention order of the Respondent No.2 in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.
13/2026 dated 23.02.2026 and quash the same and direct the respondents
to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Senthurvelan @
Susimaran, son of Muthukumar, aged about 23 years, now detained as
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 12:56:33 pm )
HCP(MD) No. 766 of 2026
“Sexual Offender” at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set
him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner(s): Dr.R.Alagumani
For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.Nirmal Kumar J.)
The petitioner is the detenu viz., Senthurvelan @ Susimaran, son of
Muthukumar, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.13/2026,
dated 23.02.2026, holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as
contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The
said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining
Authority.
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 12:56:33 pm )
HCP(MD) No. 766 of 2026
3. Though 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 22.01.2026, and the impugned detention
order came to be passed only on 23.02.2026, 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.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has
been caused to the detenu and therefore, prays for dismissal of the habeas
corpus petition.
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 12:56:33 pm )
HCP(MD) No. 766 of 2026
5. Though it has been stated by the respondents that collection of
details has caused the delay in passing the impugned detention order, a
perusal of the grounds of the detention order passed by the detaining
authority shows that there is no adverse case against the detenu. The
detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 22.01.2026 and the
detention order was passed on 23.02.2026. 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.
6. In 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
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 12:56:33 pm )
HCP(MD) No. 766 of 2026
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
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."
7. In view of the above, as pointed out by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby
vitiating and invalidating the detention order.
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 12:56:33 pm )
HCP(MD) No. 766 of 2026
8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in B.B.C.D.E.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.13/2026, dated 23.02.2026,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Senthurvelan @ Susimaran, son of Muthukumar, aged about 23 years, is
directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in
connection with any other case.
(M.N.K.,J.) (N.G.N.,J.)
14-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Lm
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 12:56:33 pm )
HCP(MD) No. 766 of 2026
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -600009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District
Magistrate,
Madurai District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 12:56:33 pm )
HCP(MD) No. 766 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
AND
N.GUNASEKARAN, J.
Lm
HCP(MD) No. 766 of 2026
14-10-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 12:56:33 pm )