SAKUNTHALA Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Memo No. 160/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 30.01.2014, whereby the petitioner's son/detenu herein, viz., Karthick, son of Meganathan, aged 23 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 30.01.2014, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr. No. 01/2014 and in the 3rd adverse case in Cr. No. 910/2013 registered by N3 Muthialpet Police Station and he has not filed any bail application in the 3rd adverse case in Cr. No. 910/2013 and the bail application filed by him in the ground case before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl. MP. No. 1358/2014, was pending 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 application in the 3rd adverse case. Further, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case and that there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail in the 3rd adverse case by relying upon the similar case registered by C5 Kothavalchavadi Police Station Cr. No. 319/2013 u/s. 341, 294[b], 336, 392, 397 and 506[ii] IPC, wherein bail was granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl. MP. No. 7032/2013. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case is pending and no bail application has been filed by him in the 3rd adverse case and he is in remand in the said cases. When a bail application is pending, there is no presumption that the detenu would be granted bail and when no bail application is filed, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming 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 3rd adverse 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 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] and [c] : 2012 [7] SCC 181 [Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State Of Manipur].