PATTU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition on behalf of her son who has been detained as a 'GOONDA' by the order of detention dated 21.3.2003 passed by the second respondent under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootlegger, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with G.O.Ms.No.4 Prohibition and Excise Department dated 18.7.2003 issued under Section 3(2) of the Act.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents and perused the records of the case.

(3.) Though several contentions have been raised in the grounds adumbrated in the petition, the main ground emphasised by the petitioner is with reference to the bail application filed by the detenu before the Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.2583 of 2003 on 18.3.2003 and it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though notice was given to the sponsoring authority on the same day in the said bail application, the detaining authority without applying his mind mechanically stated that by filing the bail application there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Hence, he has urged that the detention order is vitiated by such non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the same. He has referred us the decision, 1999 (2) M.W.N.(Cr.) 248 (ESAAC v. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPT., CHENNAI) in support of such contention and urged this Court to set aside the order of detention. On a careful perusal of the said decision, it is seen that in similar circumstances, the bail application filed by the detenu in that case was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority and therefore the order of detention was quashed. Here also, the order of detention (vide) paragraph 4 reads as follows:-