GANGA DEVI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Ganga Devi is the wife of T. Packiaraja who has been detained, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 25/11/1993 passed by the first respondent in exercise of his powers conferred by section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Central Act 46 of 1988) with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic rugs.

(2.) We do not deem it necessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order, for this habeas corpus petition has to be allowed, on a short but substantial ground.

(3.) Detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu herein and his associates had obtained bail on certain conditions from the Court of Session, Madras, the former by an order-dated 30/6/1993. He had not taken into consideration the fact, that this Court on 29/9/1993 at the instance of the department canceled bail. As we have already noticed, the impugned order of detention was passed only on 25/11/1993, almost two months after cancellation order bail. The records placed before us clearly show that the department was aware of cancellation of bail, even on 29/9/1993 itself. In spite of the said fact, the Sponsoring Authority had not placed before, the detaining authority, the fact of cancellation of bail. It only reflects deliberate suppression of vital material, which ought to have passed through the process of arriving at subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. In spite of the detaining authority having asked for particulars, which had not been furnished. We are rather worried, that some agency somewhere, had in all possibility suppressed relevant information, which would have altered the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority either way. That suppression having been done, certainty resulted in a very great lacuna. If the detaining authority had been aware that the bail ordered in favor of the petitioner had been cancelled, he would or would not have passed this preventive order. On this sole ground, detenu is bound to succeed.