KUBESH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DETENU himself is the petitioner herein. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.1568/2013, dated 09.11.2013.

(2.) THE detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_960_TLMAD0_2014.htm</FRM>

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the 3rd adverse case in Cr.No.785/2013 registered by S -9 Pazhavanthangal Police Station and in the ground case in Cr.No.820/2013 registered by S -9 Pazhavanthangal Police Station and the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in Crl.MP.No.4186/2013 was pending and he has not moved any bail application in the 3rd adverse case. He would also contend that the detaining authority has placed reliance on the statement of the sponsoring authority to the effect that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail application in the 3rd adverse case. The learned counsel further argued that in this case, the detenu has not moved any bail application in the 3rd adverse case and the bail application filed in the ground case was pending and he is in remand in the said case. When no bail application is filed, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and when a bail application is pending, then there is no presumption that the detenu would come out on bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the 3rd adverse case and there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case. The apprehension entertained in the mind of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of detenu coming out on bail as the bail application in the ground case is pending is not justifiable for the reason that he has pre -judged the matter. Concedingly he could not foresee the nature of the order that would be passed by the Court. By the reason of pendency of the application, one could not easily come to the conclusion that the Court would certainly grant bail to the accused. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non -application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the 3rd adverse case and that there is a likelihood of his coming out on bail in the ground case is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials.