D SENTHAMIL SELVI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu has suffered an order of detention, having been branded as "Bootlegger" under the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.02.2013 made in C.O.C. No: 07 of 2013.

(2.) Petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has come to the adverse notice on 3 earlier occasions viz. (1) in Cr. No: 379 of 2012 of Anaikkaranchathiram Police Station for an offence registered under Section 4 (1) (aaa) r/w 4 (1-A) of T.N.P. Act, 1937, (2) in Cr. No: 750 of 2012 of Mayiladuthurai P.E.W. for an offence registered under Section 4 (1) (i), 4 (1) (aaa) r/w 4(1-A) of T.N.P. Act, 1937 and (3) in Cr. No: 478 of 2012 of Anaikkaranchathiram Police Station for an offence registered under Section 4 (1) (aaa) r/w 4(1-A) of T.N.P. Act, 1937. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 22.01.2013 by Anaikkaranchatram Police Station, in Cr. No: 20 of 2013 for offences under Section 4 (1) (i), 4 (1) (aaa), r/w 4 (1-A) of T.N.P. Act, 1937.

(3.) The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in attacking the order of detention is that the detaining authority has not at all applied his mind while arriving at the subjective satisfaction to pass the impugned order of detention and on this ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside. By taking us through the grounds of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that at paragraph 5, the detaining authority has referred to the fact that the detenu had moved a bail application before the High Court, Chennai, in Crl. O.P. No: 3077 of 2013 and bail was granted on 08.02.2013 subject to furnishing the necessary sureties; that the detenu has not produced the necessary sureties so far and hence, he was not released on bail. After this statement, the detaining authority has proceeded to observe that there is a real and imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the above case before the Higher Court. By referring to these statements, the learned counsel would vehemently argue that this is clearly non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, while he himself has stated that bail had already been granted by the High Court, Chennai, what is the necessity for the detenu to file another bail application that too before the Higher Court. According to him, the detaining authority has mechanically passed the detention order and on this sole ground, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court [Arunachalam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and another,2006 2 MadLJ(Cri) 1188].