K. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE detenu was arrested on 8.3.2001 for the offences under Sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1A)(ii) of Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and Section 328 I.P.C. and a case was registered in Crime No. 120/2001 in Veppankuppam Police Station, Vellore District. Subsequently an order of detention was passed on 1.5.2001 under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Petitioner has filed the petition challenging the same for his friend.

(2.) SINCE the learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised only one technical ground, we are of the view that there is no need to traverse the fact in detail. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order of detention did not contain the compelling reason for passing the detention order as the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind to the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The paragraph 5 of the impugned order only specify the possibility of filing the bail application and the possibility of filing of the bail application cannot be equated to the possibility of coming out on bail. She also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishnu Nagnath Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra reported in, 2000 (4) Crimes 272 (S.C.).

(3.) FURTHER the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has no relevance because in the said judgment the words that "the detenu likely to be released on bail" are totally missing. It is clear from the paragraph 6 of the said judgment which is as follows: