PETER Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the father of the detenue. The petitioner has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking for the relief of quashing the detention order dated 24.06.2010, slapped on his son branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

(2.) Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned Counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the detaining authority has passed the impugned order mechanically and casually without any cogent materials available on record for arriving at the conclusion that the detenu is very likely to come out on bail. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in paragraph No. 6 of the grounds of detention, it is specifically stated by the detaining authority that the bail application moved by the detenu was pending for disposal and in spite of the same, without any materials available on record, the detaining authority has drawn the inference to the effect that the detenu is very likely to come out on bail and as such the impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned detention order. It is contended that as the detenu himself preferred the bail application and the same was pending disposal and as such the detaining authority has thought it fit to infer that the detenu is very likely to come out on bail.