GANAPATHY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TIRUNELVELI CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Habeas Corpus petition is filed by the father of the detenu viz., Mani @ Estate Mani aged about 30 years, challenging the order of detention No.9/BDFGISSV/ 2011 dated 26.08.2011 passed under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982), detaining the detenu as a "Goonda". Now, the detenu has been lodged at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner though raised several contentions, stressed on two points namely, the detenu is involved only in one case, that too only in IPC offence. Therefore, for a single incident involving IPC offence, no detention order can be passed as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2012(2) SCC 176 (Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima Vs. State of Manipur and others). The learned counsel also submitted that the detenu was in remand from 29.07.2011 and the detention order was passed on 26.08.2011 i.e., within one month from the date of remand. The Detaining Authority relied on a bail order granted in a similar case on the ground that there was no previous case and the person was in judicial custody for 80 days and in this case the detenu was serving as a remand prisoner only for less than a month. Therefore, the reliance made by the Detaining Authority in the bail order granted in Crime No.237 of 2011 has no connection with the present case registered against the detenu. The learned counsel also submitted that no bail application was filed by the detenu.

(3.) CONSIDERING the said submissions made on both sides, we are of the view that the detention order passed based on the involvement of the detenu in single offence and the reliance placed by the Detaining Authority in the bail order granted in the similar case has no bearing on the facts of this case and the detention order passed without application of mind cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned Detention Order is liable to be quashed.