A LINGAPPAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The Petitioner has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition, seeking for the relief of quashing the impugned detention order dated 18.05.2011, slapped on her husband under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 (Act 65 of 1980).

(2.) Mr. R.Alagumani, theLearned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the impugned detention order on two main grounds, viz. (i) the impugned order of detention was passed without any subjective satisfaction and without any cogent material that the detenu is likely to be released on bail and hence, the same is vitiated and (ii) as seen from the Proforma filed by the Respondents, there is unexplained delay of nineteen days in considering and disposing of the representation of the detenu by the Government, which would vitiate the impugned detention order.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. P. Jyothi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is No. illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention and that the detaining authority has observed that there is possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application and if he comes out on bail, he would further indulge in such activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and hence, there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act 65 of 1980) and as such, the detaining authority has rightly passed the detention order.