JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in the detention order No.157/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 15.11.2022 and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely, Syed Naveed, male, 25 years, son of Syed Munaf, now confined at Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon''ble Court and set him at liberty.) M. SUNDAR, J. 1. This order will now dispose of captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (''HCP'' for the sake of brevity). 2. When the captioned HCP was listed in the Admission Board, this Court vide order dated 24.01.2023 admitted the captioned HCP and issued Rule nisi. A scanned reproduction of the order dated 24.01.2023 is as follows: 3. The aforementioned proceedings made at the time of admission captures the factual matrix in a nut shell and therefore the aforementioned proceedings shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. To be noted the ''detention order dated 15.11.2022 bearing reference No.157/BCDFGISSSV/2022'' made by the detaining authority shall be referred to as ''impugned preventive detention order'' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 4. Ms.R.Subadra Devi, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for all respondents are before us. 5. Though at the time of admission the argument that grounds of detention have not been given at the time of serving the detention order to the detenu was projected, in the hearing today, Ms.R.Subadra Devi, learned counsel posited her campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the ground that ''live and proximate link'' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped by saying that the detenu was arrested on 21.09.2022 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 15.11.2022. 6. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time was consumed in this exercise. Considering the facts / circumstances of the case on hand and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable. 7. We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik''s case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. Considering the facts / circumstances of the case on hand and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable. 7. We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik''s case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. To be noted, Banik case law arose under ''Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988'' [hereinafter ''PIT NDPS Act'' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, wherein after considering a proposal by a Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the ''live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping'' point should be examined on a case to case basis. Hon''ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is ''unreasonable delay'' and the other facet is ''unexplained delay''. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay. 8. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/733, Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary to the Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1110, N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1159 and a series of other orders in HCP cases. 9. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ. 10. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 15.11.2022 bearing reference No.157/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Syed Naveed, male, aged 25 years, son of Thiru,Syed Munaf is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.