SIVARANJANI Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Guru, son of Suriyamoorthy, aged about 21 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No. Cr.M.P.No. 76/Goonda/2025 dtd. 9/6/2025 holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Sec. 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 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 28/4/2025, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 9/6/2025, i.e., after a lapse of one month. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the same. He further submitted that except the ground case no other adverse case is shown by the detaining authority to detain the detenu under Act. 14 of 1982. 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.