KRISHNAVENI Vs. STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Kumar, son of Sappani, aged 40 years, against the detention order passed by the second respondent, in H.S.(M) Confdl.No. 66/19, dated 23.10.2019, branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982.

(2.) Mr.K.Navaneetha Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner, would argue that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order on surmise and there is no material to show that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the ground case. He further added that the similar case relied on by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction is not similar to the case of the detenu. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the representation of the petitioner was not considered by the Authority concerned in time and there is inordinate and unexplained delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on these two grounds, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.V.Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, submitted that the detention order has been rightly passed by the second respondent taking note of the activities of the detenu and it has been passed to prevent the detenu from indulging in similar activities in future. It is the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the delay in disposal of the representation has not caused any prejudice to the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.