Ranjani @ Jannath vs The State of Tamilnadu

Court
Madras High Court

HCP(MD) No. 1199 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.GUNASEKARAN
HCP(MD) No. 1199 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011314282026}
Ranjani @ Jannath
W/o.Syed Kattu Bava,
Kidaripatti,
Melur Taluk,
Madurai District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep by,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept,
Secretariat,
St.George Fort,
Chennai - 9.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector
O/o.The District Magistrate and District
Collector,
Dindigul District.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison,
Madurai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Petition filed under section Drug Offenders H2-DO.To
call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd
respondent vide detention order No.68/2026, ROC No.4715638/2026/C2,
__________
Page  1  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:19:06 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1199 of 2026
dated 08.07.2026 issued against the petitioner's husband Syed Kattu
Bava, detenue, aged about 36 years, S/o. Abdul Rahman, and set aside
the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenue
Syed Kattu Bava (36 years) S/o.Abdul Rahman before this Court who is
detained at Central Prison, Madurai District/third respondent and set him
at liberty..
For Petitioner(s) :M/s V.Sumathi
For Respondent(s) :M/s. G.Karuppsamy Pandian
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N. GUNASEKARAN J.)
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz. Syed Kattu Bava
S/o.Abdul Rahman, aged about 36 years. The detenu has been detained
by the second respondent by his order in detention order No.68/2026,
ROC No.4715638/2026/C2, dated 08.07.2026, holding him to be a "Drug
offender", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas
__________
Page  2  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:19:06 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1199 of 2026
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 09.06.2026 and
the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 08.07..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. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition. 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.
5. The detenu was arrested on 09.06.2026 and the detention
order was passed on 08.07.2026. This shows an inordinate delay in
passing the detention order, which is also unexplained. The live and
__________
Page  3  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:19:06 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1199 of 2026
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 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
__________
Page  4  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:19:06 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1199 of 2026
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 counsel for the
petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby
vitiating and invalidating the detention order.
8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in detention order No.68/2026, ROC
No.4715638/2026/C2, dated 08.07.2026, passed by the second
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Syed Kattu Bava S/o.Abdul
Rahman, aged about 36 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.)
30-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AAV
__________
Page  5  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:19:06 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1199 of 2026
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept
Secretariat
St.George Fort
Chennai - 9
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector
O/o.The District Magistrate and District Collector
Dindigul District
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison
Madurai District
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page  6  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:19:06 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 1199 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
AND
N.GUNASEKARAN, J.
AAV
HCP(MD) No. 1199 of 2026
30-10-2026
__________
Page  7  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:19:06 pm )