SUJAN SUNDARI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Memo No.1820/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 06.12.2013, whereby the husband of the petitioner, viz., Pushparaj, S/o.Arokiasamy, aged 40 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of 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 06.12.2013, passed by the second respondent, the detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_908_TLMAD0_2014.htm</FRM>

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, though the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr.No.969/2013 registered by T16 Nazarathpet Police Station and that the bail application filed by him in the said ground case was pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Poonamallee, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.6129/2013, nothing has been stated by the Detaining Authority about the detenu being arrested and remanded in the adverse cases, particularly the 5th adverse case, wherein the detenu has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the Remand Report in respect of the said 5th adverse case has been annexed in page No.38 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu. He adds that the Detaining Authority has not stated whether the detenu on his relative has moved any bail application or not in the said case. 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 detenue coming out on bail in the ground case is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials.