VIJAYA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Murugan, son of Sivasamy Chettiyar, aged 59 years, challenging the detention order in P.D.O.No.91/2019 dated 29.12.2019, passed by the second respondent, branding him as "Drug Offender" as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2.) Mr.K.G.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would argue that admittedly, no bail petition was filed in the ground case. But, the Detaining Authority, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction, has observed that if the detenu is coming out on bail, there is a possibility of danger to the life and safety of public health of youths and general public. It is contended that the detention order has not even stated that the detenu is likely to come out on bail and no similar case particulars have been given. It is also contended that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed and there is unexplained delay in disposing the petitioner's representation.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.V.Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would state that the detenu is having six adverse cases to his credit and if he is released, he will indulge in the same offences in future, which were taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority at the time of passing of the detention order. It is also submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the detenu for the delay in disposal of the representation and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.