Thamim Ansari vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Court
Madras High Court

HCP(MD) No. 1031 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.GUNASEKARAN
HCP(MD) No. 1031 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011076772026}
Thamim Ansari
S/o. Abbash Manthiri,
Door No. 5/330,
Seethalakshmi Nagar,
Othakadai,
Madurai East Taluk,
Madurai District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its
Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
State of Tamilnadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600009.
2. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Madurai District.
3. The Superintendent Of Prison
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Petition filed under section TN Act 14 of 82 H2-DO. To
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Calling for the entire records, connected
with the detention order R-2 in Detention Order. BBCDEFGISSSV/
__________
Page  1  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:50:55 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1031 of 2026
No.44/2026 dated 16.07.2026 and Quash the same and to direct the
respondents to produce detenu Thamim Ansari, son of Abbash Manthiri
Rajesh aged about 24 years now confining as ‘Drug Offender’ at Madurai
Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s Karthick T
For Respondent(s) :Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.GUNASEKARAN., J.)
Thamim Ansari, son of
The petitioner is the detenu viz.,
Abbash Manthiri Rajesh aged about 24 years . The detenu has been
detained by the second respondent by his order in BBCDEFGISSSV/
No.44/2026 dated 16.07.2026 ‘Drug Offender’
holding him to be a , as
contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 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
__________
Page  2  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:50:55 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1031 of 2026
impugned detention order. In this case, the detenu was arrested on
17.06.2026, and the impugned detention order came to be passed
only on 16.07.2026, i.e., after a lapse of 29 days. 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 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.
The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early
5.
as on 17.06.2026 and the detention order was passed on 16.07.2026.
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.
__________
Page  3  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:50:55 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1031 of 2026
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 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
__________
Page  4  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:50:55 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1031 of 2026
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 BBCDEFGISSSV/ No.44/2026 dated
16.07.2026 , passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu,
Thamim Ansari, son of Abbash Manthiri Rajesh aged about 24
viz.,
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.)
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
CM
__________
Page  5  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:50:55 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1031 of 2026
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its
Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
State of Tamilnadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600009.
2. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by 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
Madurai
__________
Page  6  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:50:55 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1031 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
AND
N.GUNASEKARAN, J.
CM
HCP(MD) No. 1031 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page  7  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:50:55 am )