(1.) THE petitioner in H.C.P.(MD).No.215 of 2014 and the petitioner in H.C.P.(MD) No.217 of 2014 are the wife of the detenus respectively and the petitioner in H.C.P.(MD).No.216 of 2014 is the brother of the detenu and they have filed the Habeas Corpus Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the detention orders in F.No.673/24/2013 -Cus VIII, F.No.673/23/2013 -Cus VIII, and F.No.673/22/2013 -Cus VIII, dated 04.02.2014 passed and executed on 08.02.2014 by the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenus namely R.Kanthasamy @ Kandasamy, aged about 45 years son of S.Rajagopal; G.Maheswaran, aged about 28 years son of C.Govindarajan, and C.Govindarajan @ Sokkupillai Govindarajan before his Court, now detained under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act in the Central Prison, Trichy and set them at liberty.
(2.) SINCE the issue involved in these petitions is one and the same, the petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience sake, the detenus in H.C.P.(MD).Nos.215 to 217 of 2014 are referred as D1 to D3.
(3.) 02.2014 and executed the same on 08.02.2014 by the detaining authority. Thus, there is a delay of 160 days (5 + months) in passing the detention order. The nexus between the date of incident and detention is not maintained and the live link between the date of incident and detention is snapped. Further, the circumstance of the delay in passing the order of detention for over 5 + months is both inordinate as well as one that would conclusively demonstrate that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is not at all genuine and the petitioners would also assert, without the fear of contradiction that they have not indulged in any prejudicial activity in the intervening period. That is also not the case of the detaining authority. The detention orders passed after the inordinate delay have become punitive in nature and the detention orders stand vitiated.