R MALAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the order of detention, he would focus his arguments mainly on one ground namely, in paragraph 4 of the detention order, the detaining authority has taken a view that bail is granted in such similar cases by the concerned Court and such view is not supported by any material information such as Crime No., Case No., the offence for which bail is being granted by the Courts, etc. and on this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 (3) C.T.C. 222 Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on this point. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, perused the material documents and the detention order in question and verified the records.

(3.) THE relevant portion of the detention order which shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority is paragraph 4, which reads as follows :