PAPPATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Mayakrishnan, son of Ochappan, aged 36 years, against the detention order No.66/2019, dated 29.10.2019, branding him as "Drug Offender" as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2.) Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the detenu was arrested on 14.10.2019 and the detention order came to be passed on 29.10.2019. It is stated that based on a solitary case, the detention order was passed and the bail petition filed by the detenu in the ground case was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge for Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, vide order dated 22.10.2019 in Cr.M.P.No.4149 of 2019 and the bail petition was pending consideration before the High Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15550 of 2019. But, the Detaining Authority, referring to the bail order dated 10.06.2015 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10286 of 2015 granted to one Ponnangan by the High Court, has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail petition before the Court of law in the ground case. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the bail order in the similar case has been enclosed, the copy of the bail petition has not been enclosed in the booklet, which deprived the valuable rights of the detenu from making effective representation to the Authorities concerned for revocation of the detention order. It is also stated that the representation of the petitioner was not disposed of in time and there is unexplained delay. Therefore, on these two grounds, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.V.Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would argue that though the detention order has been passed based on the solitary case, considering the quantity involved in this case and also after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the detention order has been passed by the Detaining Authority and there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. It is further submitted that the delay has caused no prejudice to the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.