Karthik vs The State of Tamilnadu

Court
Madras High Court

HCP(MD) No. 1023 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. 1023 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011082562026}
Karthik
S/o.Sankar,
Bharathiyar Road,
Neethirajan School Opposite,
Samuthiram Compound,
Jaihindpuram,
Madurai District.
Now at,
Subramaniyapuram Poigai,
Narasingam,
Othakadai,
Madurai District.
(Now confining at Madurai Central Prison).
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep by,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
O/o.The District Collector and District
Magistrate,
Madurai District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
__________
Page  1  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:49:25 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1023 of 2026
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Petition filed under section TN Act 14 of 82 H2-DO.To
call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the
Respondent No.2 in BBCDEFGISSSV No.45/2026 dated 16.07.2026 and
quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person
of the detenu by name Karthik, S/o.Sankar aged about 37 years, now
detained as ‘Drug 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 N.GUNASEKARAN., J.)
The petitioner is detenu viz., Surya aged about 37 years
S/o. Madasamy . The detenu has been detained by the second
BBCDEFGISSSV No.45/2026 dated
respondent by his order in
16.07.2026 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", 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.
__________
Page  2  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:49:25 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1023 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
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.
5. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early
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
__________
Page  3  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:49:25 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1023 of 2026
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 authority in passing the detention
order and consequently render the detention
__________
Page  4  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:49:25 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1023 of 2026
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 detentionin BBCDEFGISSSV No.45/2026 dated
16.07.2026 , passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu,
Surya, aged about 37 years S/o. Madasamy
viz., , 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 10:49:25 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1023 of 2026
To
1. Rep by
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept
Fort St.George
Chennai - 9
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
O/o.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 10:49:25 am )

HCP(MD) No. 1023 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
AND
N.GUNASEKARAN, J.
CM
HCP(MD) No. 1023 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page  7  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 10:49:25 am )