THANGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is the detenu himself under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1992 branded as a 'goonda'. Mr. P. Venkatasubramanian. learned Counsel argued on behalf of the detenue to set aside the order of detention only on one ground (though many grounds have been raised in the grounds of the writ petition) that there are no materials at all before the detaining authority so as to enable him to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that there is a possibility of the detenue coming out on bail. If that is so, there would be no compelling necessity to make the order of detention. In answer to this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argue that once the subjective satisfaction is reflected in the grounds of detention, the court would be reluctant to probe into the truth or otherwise of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority. Therefore the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that so long as the subjective satisfaction referred to above is reflected in the grounds of detention, it must be accepted as true.

(2.) IN view of the rival contentions we propose to extract in this order the relevant portion of the grounds of detention to decide whether the detaining authority had arrived at the subjective satisfaction:

(3.) IN the case on hand, we have found that in the first adverse case, among the other offences the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered. In the second adverse case offences punishable under Section 294 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code stand registered. In the ground case among other offences, the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act had been registered. Therefore from the very nature of the offences registered as noticed above, it is not possible to arrive at the subjective satisfaction, about the imminent possibility of the intended detenue coming out on bail. We are of the opinion that in the backdrop of the offences already registered, which includes the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the possibility of the intended detenue to come out on bail as matter of course does not appear to be bright as the detaining authority thought of. At the risk of repetition we are of the opinion that as already held by this Court in H.C.P. No. 685 of 1999 the offences registered against the detenue would not confer on him a right of bail as a matter of right and therefore there is a possibility of the Court declining bail also. If that is so, the mere statement of the detaining authority in the grounds of detention that there is a possibility of the detenue filing a bail application and that in that event he is likely to come out on bail definitely falls short of necessary material. Admittedly, in this case the detenue had not filed any bail petition at all and hence there are no materials at all available for the detaining authority to conclude that there is a compelling necessity to pass the order of detention.