AJIMUNISHA Vs. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in BDFGISSV No. 1705/2013 dated 24.11.2013, whereby the brother of the petitioner herein, namely Jameer @ Jameer Hussain son of Kijar Mohamed, aged 38 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the 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 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".

(2.) AS per the grounds of detention dated 24.11.2013, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_964_TLMAD0_2014.htm</FRM>

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the adverse cases in Cr.Nos.725/2013 and 769/2013 and in the ground case in Cr.No.766/2013 registered by C5 Kothavalchavadi Police Station and N3 Muthialpet Police Station and the bail applications filed by the detenu in the ground case as well as in the 1st adverse case before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.Nos.15322/2013 and 15321/2013 were pending and the detenu has not moved any bail applications in the 2nd adverse case as on the date of the passing of the detention order. 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 applications in the 2nd adverse case. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the detenu has not moved any bail application in the 2nd adverse case and the bail applications filed in the ground case and in the 1st adverse case are pending and he is in remand in the said cases. 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 ground case as well as in the adverse cases and there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases. 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 filed in the ground case and in the 1st adverse cases are 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 2nd adverse case and that there is a likelihood of his coming out on bail in the ground case as well as in the 1st adverse case is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] : 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V. Saravanan @ S.A.R. Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi V. State of Tamilnadu Through Secretary and Another]; [b] : 2005 [1] CTC 577 [Velmurugan @ Velu Vs. The Commissioner of Police]; [c] : 2012 [7] SCC 181 [Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State of Manipur] and [d], 2008 [3] MLJ (Crl.) 144 [S. Andal Vs. District Magistrate and District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai and Another].